Orginally published on Climate Realism today.
On August 8th , just a day after the passage of the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act,” containing a suite of climate-related spending and tax credits, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) editorial board published a scathing editorial titled “Tilting at Climate Windmills – Schumer-Manchin will have little effect on the world’s temperature,” showing how the provisions of the bill will have virtually no effect on climate at all.
WSJ uses analysis with the help of the IPCC climate models and Dr. Bjorn Lomborg to come up with a number, and the number is vanishingly small. They write:
Nearly all of Washington—Democrats, the press, lobbyists—is taking a victory lap with Senate passage of the Schumer-Manchin tax, climate and drug price control bill. The climate lobby is especially thrilled, claiming a historic victory that will reduce temperatures, hold back the rising sea, and save the planet.
Or, maybe not. Our contributor Bjorn Lomborg looked at the Rhodium Group estimate for CO2 emissions reductions from Schumer-Manchin policies. He then plugged them into the United Nations climate model to measure the impact on global temperature by 2100. He finds the bill will reduce the estimated global temperature rise at the end of this century by all of 0.028 degrees Fahrenheit in the optimistic case. In the pessimistic case, the temperature difference will be 0.0009 degrees Fahrenheit.
So, as seen in the figure below provided by Lomborg, we get somewhere between 0.028 and 0.0009°F reduction in temperature by 2100 for about 400 billion dollars in climate spending contained in the bill.
At that rate, simple math (see Excel sheet below) suggests the amount of money required to achieve the much desired 1.5°C (2.7°F) reduction in temperature using the best case reduction of 0.028°F would be $38,571,428,571,428 or approximately 39 Trillion dollars. The worst-case temperature reduction of 0.0009°F would cost a staggering 1,200,000,000,000,000 dollars or ONE QUADRILLION TWO HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS.
To put that number in perspective, according to the World Bank, the 2020 world economy in U.S. dollars was approximately $84.7 trillion. Assuming it would actually work, to have a meaningful effect on climate, the world would have to spend about half the global annual economy for the best-case scenario. If you think inflation is bad now, just wait for those sorts of numbers.
The worst-case scenario is out of reach of world wealth.
President Biden had this to say:
Now, let me be clear: This bill would be the most significant legislation in history to tackle the climate crisis and improve our energy security right away. And it’ll give us a tool to meet the climate goals that are set — that we’ve agreed to — by cutting emissions and accelerating clean energy.
There are just no words to describe this sort of disconnect between believing you’re a climate superhero and climate reality, especially when you’re a Nobel winning economist. Kudos to WSJ and Lomborg for pointing out the climate folly of the “Inflation Reduction Act.”
(Thanks to Charles Rotter for checking the math in the Excel file -Anthony)
In any event, there is nothing to tackle.
you mean that a miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere really has nothing to do with the earth’s temperature or climate – blasphemous
No, scientifically inaccurate!
Explain why you think so, Griff
Yes, unsupported opinions from him have become tiresome.
I’ll ‘Splain it for Griff
(Griff),…why I think so…
ScienceSeanceYou really mean Climate Science ™ inaccurate.
.
Good Lord, No!
Tumbleweeds sow seeds that way!
giffie sows total BS and nonsense, for a harvest of ignorance.
In detail with numbers and explicit effects for every calculation, giffie.
This is not about reducing CO2
This is about increasing centralized command/control of the federal government by Dem/Progs
All the rest is bull manure
…which Lomborg has not yet understood. Sadly enough. He still thinks this is about clean water and food supplies to the poor.
I suspect he does understand. But he knows he can more effectively fight the Warmunists by running with their assumptions.
Interesting. Maybe.
So, when the planet starts having measurable cooling will they claim “I did That”? They stopped global warming….
Of course. Any temperature reductions in the future will just be due to their heroic green triumph over the rest of us. Father Nature will have had nothing at all to do with it.
No, at that point they will immediately and shamelessly pivot to global cooling being the next catastrophe that only socialism can solve.
Sadly this is vastly more likely and will require equally monstrous spending to save us from.
The same as they did in the 70s
The only kicker is they will have to admit that atmospheric CO2 levels, which will be somewhere in 500 ppm level in 30 years +/-, show that CO2 does not drive the earth’s temperatures! 🤣🤣🤣
They won’t have to show anything. They will just declare that they never said anything about CO2 causing warming, and the media will back them up.
They’re already setting methane and nitrogen as the next excuse to save us from ourselves.
The NYT wrote an essay recently that the Democrats have saved civilization.
Clearly they are getting ready to declare victory over CO2, regardless of whatever CO2 and climate actually do in the future.
No. Because if it cools before they have implemented all their socialist dreams of centrally-planned energy they’ll tell us that it takes at least 30 years to a determine a trend. Because natural variation. See how that works? Natural variation is a thing only if it supports their narrative of apocalyptic human-caused climate change. If it undermines their crazy claims then natural variation doesn’t exist.
It is already working in the Southern Ocean and along the Equator. Northern Hemisphere needs more effort though.
However, possibly the most amazing thing in the scramble to achieve this ‘pie in the sky’ over-reach, is just how much energy from fossil fuels will be needed to achieve this. Talk about a CATCH-22.
Thank god I didn’t have a career as a professional liar.
I’d have shot myself.
I truly do not understand how people like Krugman, Schumer and Biden look in the mirror.
Like so…?
Do you suppose they wonder if their bulging tummies could mean they’re pregnant?
You are funny!
They may need to go to the bathroom
Vampires and psychopaths’ images do not reflect in a mirror, so they never see anything to trouble their minds in the least.
You need to have a soul for those to work.
What they need is the Mirror of Dorian Grey
Is there any way at all that we can hold politicians responsible for the misuse of public funding? There are so many people that could be benefited from this money and yet it is being wasted with no consequences for the people who are wasting it.
The American public supposedly voted for this, it’s on them.
About 800 relatives and friends voted for Bandon, the other 77,999,200 voted against “The Donald”. If DJT had the wit and charm of Ronald R. or Jimmy Stewart, the Nation would be in a better place. Another would be Johathan Goldsmith of the Dos Equis gig. One can think of many others that had “class” rather than “style-without-class.”
Your turn . . .
aBrandon Biden?
He got credited with 80 million BALLOTS, by hook and by crook
He did not get 80 million people to vote for him
Thinking people KNOW this, too!
Politicians always have a get-out-of-free jail card – they’ll blame it on “The Science”
Yes, this craziness is a constant feature of green climate policy proposals. And this is why I say policy is where skeptics should focus their efforts.
The idea that anything the US does will have any effect on climate is absurd. Its absurd to think there will be any direct effects, and its even more absurd to think there will be any effects from others following the US example.
Good news is that the WSJ is making the point, and making it forcefully and in a way that can’t be argued with.
“Good news is that the WSJ is making the point, and making it forcefully and in a way that can’t be argued with.”
Sadly, they won’t argue with it…they’ll just completely ignore it like they’ve always done!
Unfortunately the point is not the point. The point is to spread payola around among the faithful to energize them to re-elect Democrats. What I can’t see is the point of having statutes on the books prohibiting bribes for votes, when that is all politics is about…well that and making the pols rich.
These economists have done their sums alright, but why do they still accept “the Science” as sacrosanct? The whole climate / energy problem started with the stupid AGW hypothesis, that has been thoroughly debunked by good solid science including empirical measurements of many natural climate factors and forcing’s. Surely, it’s time the alarmist IPCC is forced to justify its crazy temperature predictions and related requirements to reduce fossil fuel energy, particularly CO2 emissions, when science has shown CO2 has a trivial continuing forcing effect, not worth worrying about!
Scientists must defend real truth in climate science, not this tired AGW paradigm that had had its day and is falsified. Justifying global policies based on it, is the epitome of stupidity, especially when those policies will have no effect on the supposed climate problem.
For the sake of humanity we must act smarter than this.
Actually, since CO2 does not cause any increase in global mean temperature, the world could spend an infinite amount of money and fail to change the global mean temperature.
Next election ….throw the demrat bums out and reverse all this foul legislation.
We all know what has to be done in 2024.
“Trump makes it official: U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate accord”
How dare you use facts, math, and logic and stuff!! This is an outrage! Just for that I’m going to glue myself to something. That’ll teach you.
Perhaps if they superglued their hands over their mouths and noses the global problems would self resolve
And that is using the ridiculously high climate sensitivity of the IPCC models.
Does using this suggest that Lomborg actually believes in the climate model, thus supporting it possibly when new modifications make estimates better in line with our green blob, or is this just an exercize in playing devil’s advocate?
We have a course in mechanical engineering with the title “System Dynamics”, electrical engineers have something similar often going by the name of “Linear Systems”. The course looks a lot like one in applied differential equations, but it is essentially about modeling, and simulation. I have taught it half-dozen times, and am returning part time to teach it again this autumn. The very first day, right out of the starting gate, we have a general “discussion” of preliminary ideas one of which is avoiding reification — avoiding the tendency to treat the model as the thing itself.
Models have to have their departures from the realization of a system quantified — an uncertainty analysis perhaps. They must be tested to verify usefulness (functionality).
I have listened to Lomborg talk and i can’t decide if he actually believes in the scientology or if he gives lip service so he doesn’t get cancelled completely on the economics side.
I think its the second one, i think he is too smart to really believe the twaddle.
The problem with using this approach is that it lends a degree of credibility to faulty thinking.
I’m sure we have all had the conversation that something is only a trace amount and show them it doesn’t matter. But then they propose that even a tiny amount proves their point and that the faulty idea must be more or less correct at its core.
Sure but he needs to get out the word that even if the model and theory are correct, the solutions proposed are worse than the supposed problem. I think it’s worthwhile.
Yes you are right Pat, if Lomborg can prove the solutions are total bogus then people will be forced to look at the initial scientific proposition generating the ‘problem’ and question its validity. This debunking of AGW climate science has to start somewhere, by putting pressure on the politicians supporting it, and through them the scientists pushing this garbage.
I agree. He was attacked mercilessly by the Greens and academics of that bent when the Skeptical environmentalist came out and had to fight for years to retain his academic position.
I’m in the UK but I guess the WSJ would not have gone to a well known sceptic to comment so if not Lomborg perhaps nobody.
The actual number number required to keep the climate from warming 1.5 C is either infinite or zero depending on the order of the mathematical operations. I’ll go with zero. A correct model would show CO2 emissions do not produce any warming.
Let’s examine the claimed mechanism of warming by Spencer Weart and Ray Pierrehumbert at Real Climate, A Saturated Gassy Argument.
Basically, the argument is based on thinking about the CO2 floating high up in the atmosphere only. As it increases it absorbs more energy and this supposedly raises the effective radiation altitude to a higher, cooler level.
But, as mentioned in his argument, CO2 is a well mixed gas. When it increases, it increases at every layer. This changes everything.
What this means is more energy is now being transported upward. While the top layer will absorb more energy, there’s also more energy it can’t absorb. The way this works out is very amazing. Energy is radiated to space at all altitudes. It’s a brilliant design.
Just look at any two adjacent layers. The lower layer will contain more CO2 molecules and therefore will radiate upward more energy than the higher, less dense layer can absorb. That energy will essentially never get absorbed because the same inequality holds all the way to space.
This loss of energy starts right above the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The energy lost is based on the change in density which is based mainly on gravity. Adding more CO2 maintains the same density ratio between every layer as you rise.
The bottom line is the very top layer of the atmosphere is almost completely irrelevant. It still can’t absorb all the radiation from the layer right below it.
the satellites show that CO2 is NOT a well mixed gas …
Close enough. The graphs color code small variances with big changes. Look at the actual numbers.
It all depends on the definition of “well-mixed.”
All the measurements show a pretty consistent concentration of CO2 relative to other gases as you move up through the atmosphere. I don’t think the small differences will make much of a difference as they move around all the time.
Varying by only a few percent world wide is well mixed.
Lesseee here… 0.0009(F) divided by $700 Billion dollars equals…
slush fund + crony rewards + 10% for the Big Guy + customary Senate rake + some $$ that just vanishes with a remainder of FA in temperature reduction
Will somebody check my math for errors?
Seven-hundred trillion U.S. dollars per degree Fahrenheit. A bargain!
They have gone from “we don’t pick winners–only favored losers” in the Obama administration to “we will carpet bomb the economy with tax credits” until they create a more expensive living standard for all and tax credit treasure hunters instead of risk takers. This is another win for China in all the confusion and distractions.
so what? they don’t care if it’s true or not
as we’ve seen, if no actual crisis materializes they’ll just declare one anyway
So first we learned the ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ won’t reduce inflation. Despite Biden saying it was zero last month rather than 9.8% as estimated by his own administration.
Now we learn it won’t affect the climate either. Despite Biden saying it will.
Biden has a truth problem. It started after he truthfully said he had put together the best election fraud team, then falsely claimed to have won the stolen election.
Ford’s F-150 Lightning’s rising from $6k-$8.5k, +$7k for the entry level Pro now @ $46,974. There goes your $7,500 tax credit!
Inflation? I’m now paying $1.78 for a loaf of Walmart freshly-baked sesame seed Italian bread. Three months ago I was paying $1 for the same item.
The Inflation Reduction Act is just an act.
It will increase inflation.
The climate spending is just spending for government cronies.
It will increase the number of armed IRS agents to make sure they have the muscle to confiscate what they think is the government’s fair share.
November can’t get here fast enough.
Does it not seem extremely likely that the Supreme Court’s recent controversial rulings will assure an overwhelming Democratic victory in the midterm elections?
Do you mean sending the authority for abortion laws back to the states?
Do you mean clarifying the constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
Do you consider either of them controversial and why?
I didn’t find abortion numbers, but gun sales have been about 2 million per month. That’s double the number from 2 years before –slightly older data. USA population data suggest the number of abortions will decline over the next few years because fewer females are going to be entering the age cohorts from which demand comes.
The “back to the states” ruling will be considered a good choice.
Do you think any ruling is controversial?
Controversial enough to sway a large percentage of voters?
Socialists believe everything should be judged in regards to them.
They are extremely upset that the Supreme Court didn’t codify their position du-jour. From that, they assume that the whole country must also be up in arms.
Like that New York Democrat who declared that she couldn’t understand how that scoundrel Nixon beat nice Mr. McGovern. After all, nobody she knew voted for Nixon.
If anything, leftists are even more insular today.
I was trying to determine how much of a leftist AndyHce is.
I know small minds live in small bubbles. That’s why they need groupthink, they don’t have enough braincells by themselves.
No.
Glad to hear it.
It isn’t me, it is people who believe those decisions are wrong. There seems to be tremendous agitation and organizing to oppose. I’m just reading the signs and those do not seem good.
Ha.
Reading the signs from leftists.
Sure they are organizing to cause disturbances that might make weak-minded fools tremble in fear. That’s in their playbook.
Proper responses to their disturbances are in order.
Where on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs do you think “recent” SCOTUS decisions rank in the lives of American voters? I read the tea leaves, as well, and what I see is discontent over food and energy costs. In my opinion, folks are connecting the dots between policy and negative outcomes in the economy; this will be reflected in November results. Centrist Democratic candidates do not have enough time to distance themselves from Biden and his cabinet, despite the recent announcement by the CDC that Covid is essentially over.
Why would you assume that? The only people who are worked up over those rulings would never have voted for Republicans in the first place.
Regardless, the number of people who support abortion up to the moment of birth, which has been the Democrat position for decades, is miniscule.
See my reply above. My impressions come from people who think those decisions are the devils own handiwork and who are making efforts to overturn them at any cost. Only the Democrats are offering hope for that to any significant degree.
If you are getting your “impressions” from the news media, then you are being sold a bill of goods.
Ha.
You think people care more about whether someone can get an abortion conveniently than fill their gas tank and freezer.
I’ve seen brick walls that aren’t as dense as you portray yourself.
The estimated cost figures in the article to achieve net zero are far too low. Every one percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is more difficult and expensive than the previous one percent reduction. The low hanging fruit are picked first. Any serious attempt to achieve net zero by any country will bankrupt that country very quickly.
hasn’t that been is process for quite some time now. The debt of at last most western nations is well beyond any possibility of ever being paid off. It is still possible to further impoverish the peasants in order to make interest payments, however.
To all of the good people here on WUWT not living in the US, yes, I regret to inform you that our population is filled with very foolish and poorly educated people. They believe in this kind of climate nonsense with a religious vigor.
Unfortunately, the situation in Britain isn’t any different.
It is, after all, the First Church of the Boiling Globe.
Clever
I long time ago, some of us went the other way:
Church Of The Sacred Carbon… | Musings from the Chiefio (wordpress.com)
Posted on 21 July 2012
I think the joke needs refining. Phrases, such as Our lady of the perpetual boiling globe, for example, is more mellifluous, but I think the general idea, yours and Slowroll’s have merit.
“Kudos to WSJ and Lomborg for pointing out the climate folly of the “Inflation Reduction Act.”
Kudos to WSJ and Lomborg for having the stomach to even bother using models known to be worthless. ‘Hoist by their own petard’ way well be the best way to deal with the technical side of the climatariat.
It’s just money kids – the taxpayers can always make more, after all the Dem’s are saving the world!
I guess it’s too early for them to start using the words down payment. That will come shortly and the tax rate on stock buybacks will only go up when they need to go to the piggybank.
I predict a lot more draughts, floods, and storms with have a lot less news coverage and organized panic. But this is cyclical and it will stir up once again when they need to go back to the well again for mo money.
The temperature curve in the graph accompanying this article is a complete departure from the patterned temperature record established from the mid-1880’s until about 2004. According to that temperature pattern, the only significantly long continuous period of warming during the current century would be from about 2035 until 2065 and would amount to a temperature rise of about one degree centigrade.
With all the floods and storms, a few extra draughts will help to keep ones sanity.
Krugman has never been right about anything…
Correct. Further, his New Economic Geography is a re-wording of the old economic geography nicely explained via a publication titled The Geographical Review, a publication of the American Geographical Society, founded in 1851 in New York City. There are other economic geography journals. One – Economic Geography – was first published in 1925.
I’m pretty sure he gets his shoes on the correct foot most of the time.
How do you know?
Trudeau doesn’t
Evidence?
The economy did not receive Krugman’s memo about having to crash when Trump became president. 😉
Nothing we do, NOTHING will change the climate … this is just an exercise in taxpayer money laundering … its about power and control …
More clear evidence that that the ultimate outcome is of no concern to the politicos. All they care about is filling the trough for their donors and friends so that can fatten up before the voters finally realize they need to stop the corruption orgy and bring real leadership back into government.
but, but, Joe Biden admitted during his visit to Georgia, that he can’t control the global climate… just yet….😏
Francis Menton- ” The bill is still not final, since it differs substantially from a version previously passed by the House.
… it appears that the very most destructive provision of the proposed bill got scrapped at the last minute, just prior to Senate passage. That was a provision that would have attempted to substantially undo the Supreme Court’s June 30 decision in West Virginia v. EPA.
… Under the Senate’s arcane rules, to avoid the possibility of a filibuster and a requirement for 60 votes to proceed, the proposed bill had to meet the tests for “reconciliation.” That meant that the bill could only include provisions for taxing and spending.
… Sen Ted Cruz (R-TX) warned that buried in the 725-page Schumer-Manchin bill are provisions designed to “overturn” the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. Cruz did not name the provision or provisions he was referring to.”
While the Inflation Reduction Act is a useless pork package, a much more
potentially dangerous part that’s still unsettled- provisions to “substantially undo the Supreme Court’s June 30 decision in West Virginia v. EPA”- could end up in the final bill, that would be much worse than the pork!
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-8-9-we-may-have-dodged-a-bullet-in-the-misnamed-inflation-reduction-act
It’s actually an inflation ignitor if you factor in the extra activity with scarce materials and labor to build favored projects at a faster rate to mine much more tax credits over a 10-year period. Just the extra fuel use to transport more EV parts and renewable project components will be substantial. Other parts of the economy will be stressed more to support the enlarged tax credit-based economy that’s about to explode. All of this extra activity and inflation may drive some added need for interest rate hikes on the non-tax credit economy to fight the “inflation reduction” ignitors.
Are there ever Congressional bills that do not do the opposite of whatever their title suggests?
The “simple maths” presented here appears to be wrong for two reasons. Firstly there is a difference between limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees and “much desired 1.5 C reduction in temperature”. Secondly and more importantly the author is confusing the total amount needed with the annual spend. The figure of 38 Trillion needed to reduce global temperatures is the total amount just as the 400 billion in the inflation reduction act is the total cost not the annual cost. Dividing the 38 Trillion by 80 years (i.e. roughly the number of years left before the end of the century) and comparing that to the global GDP you find that a 1.5 degree reduction in temperature would cost 1% of global GDP not the 50% claimed here which is just fear mongering.
Twaddle
Net zero just in the USA will cost minimum $400 trillion
An impossible number no matter how you look at it
And for nothing
Really? Via the CO2 control knob?
I think that they think that they are so close to their target that they can ignore everything inconvenient and just make one final push. Their target – total control – has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 or the global climate.
I think and hope that they are wrong, but it is still going to take a lot of effort from a lot of people to stop them. Maybe “Don’t Pay UK” has to start its ‘strike’ in the UK and spread to the USA and other countries.
These are interesting times that I could happily do without.
Exactly who are “they”? Pushing baseless conspiracy theories about unnamed people who
supposedly want to control the world without any evidence doesn’t help anyone.
Is there any evidence that you can provide either to identify who is part of this global conspiracy or that they are actively trying to obtain “total control”?
Izaak, I’m familiar with your line of argument, you are demanding a document with signatures detailing what our lying eyes are telling us.
Pure troll maneuver, reasonable can look at a balance of actions and see a pattern.
If we see a push for an already failed technology (wind and solar) and a push away from a tech that works (nuclear) for a supposed problem (cO2) we can readily determine something else is going on.
If you can think
Big if
Pat,
plenty of “reasonable” people can look at things and see patterns completely different to the ones that you see. Every scientific body in the world thinks that rising CO2 levels are a problem, almost every country has signed up to Paris climate agreement. Over 99% of climate scientists think that rising CO2 levels are a problem. So are they all part of this global conspiracy? In which case it must includes 10’s of thousands of politicians and scientists in every country in the world. And despite the huge number of people involved nobody has stepped forward to admit the hoax. That is just not believable which is why if you want to make such a claim then you need to provide some evidence for it.
Appeal to authority. However the actual world is still not agreeing with any of the models.
Guess you’ve never watched a WEF vid…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/11/claim-a-total-victory-for-socialism-could-save-us-from-climate-change/
From the article:
‘President Biden had this to say:
Now, let me be clear….And it’ll give us a tool to meet the climate goals that are set — that we’ve agreed to — by cutting emissions and accelerating clean energy.’
Can someone remind me what ‘climate goals are set’ and ‘we’ve agreed to’?
Probably the never ratified by the US Senate Paris Treaty. They just pretend it was.
McKinsey group puts the annual net-zero capital expenditure requirement based on current models at $3 to 5 trillion, each and every year.
Total capital costs in the order of 100 to 1000 trillion dollars in the foreseeable. This does not include consumer costs and opportunity costs.
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
If temperatures level off they’ll claim praise.
If they don’t, they’ll double down.
Either way, weather events of all kinds will continue.
The US bill goes about 0.5% of annual spending required. Each major economy will need to contribute about 20x more than what’s in the US bill, each and every year, for decades to come.
Even then, it will be extremely fuzzy what difference any of it made.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-1-14-calculating-the-full-costs-of-electrifying-everything-using-only-wind-solar-and-batteries
“For several years now, advocates of “decarbonizing” our energy system, along with promoters of wind and solar energy, have claimed that the cost of electricity from the wind and sun was dropping rapidly and either already was, or soon would be, less than the cost of generating the same electricity from fossil fuels. These claims are generally based on a metric called the “Levelized Cost of Energy,” which is designed to seem sophisticated to the uninitiated, but in the real world is completely misleading because it omits the largest costs of a system where most generation comes from intermittent sources. The large omitted costs are those for storage (batteries) and transmission. But as we now careen recklessly down the road to zero emissions, how much will these omitted costs really amount to?
A guy named Ken Gregory has recently (December 20, 2021, updated January 10, 2022) come out with a Report at a Canadian website called Friends of Science with the title “The Cost of Net Zero Electrification of the U.S.A.” A somewhat abbreviated version of Gregory’s Report has also appeared at Watts Up With That here. Gregory provides a tentative number for the additional storage costs that could be necessary for full electrification of the United States system, with all current fossil fuel generation replaced by wind and solar. That number is $433 trillion. Since the current U.S. annual GDP is about $21 trillion, you will recognize that the $433 trillion represents more than 20 times full U.S. annual GDP. In the post I will give some reasons why Gregory may even be underestimating what the cost would ultimately prove to be.”
Didn’t Atlas Shrugged explain the notion that if a bill is called a particular thing, it will in fact do just the opposite?
Climate Scientology at its worst unless you are one of the parasites in the Climate Industrial Complex…