If I make it to January 1st, 2050 (my 102nd birthday), I’m going to ignore my cardiologist’s advice and have a fantastic meal consisting of the things I’m not supposed to eat.
The truth is there is no accumulation in the atmosphere from year-to-year. All the sinks operate on both natural and anthro emissions (clouds, trees,.cold wet soil, lakes. and finally the cold polar waters.There is buildup (accumulation) over ice as it freezes but is rapidly consumed by frigid waters as the ice melts. Regress Arctic monthly atmospheric CO2 concentrations with months and Arctic monthly sea-ice concentrations. Natural emissions are at least 20 times more than anthros, so only a slight increase in natural emissions can produce the observed year-to-year increase in atmospheric.
concentration.Compare the observed annual average CO2 year-to-year increase with the year-to-year increase in burning fossil fuel emissions of CO2 and draw your own conclusions..
Fred, the 2 ppm annual CO2 increase is about 1/2 of human emissions. Yes, natural emissions are about 20 times higher, but would imply that some natural source is increasing every year to show up at Mauna Loa and would have to have increased by 30% over the time of Keeling’s record, so should easily be identifiable…
But nobody has come up with a natural phenomenon that would rationally explain the increased CO2, whereas the CO2 emissions number from human sources is a reasonable estimate. The amount of warming versus the amount of CO2 in presence of convection, clouds, rainfall, aerosols in a real climate is a much less distinct number, and the effect of a degree or two warming on a human population is the same difference as 2 cities 300 miles apart in latitude….so not really a problem…undo the top button of your sweater….
The equatorial oceans have been warming for years (since the little ice age).That warming has evaporated a lot of water. The CO2 contained in that water was released into the atmosphere. Most of that water condenses into clouds and that water is returned to the surface as rain.That rain absorbs most of the CO2 and returns it to the surface. However, a fraction shoots out the top of thunder clouds to be transported to the poles by jet streams. The amounts reaching the Arctic and Antarctic are much greater than all anthropogenic emissions. That amount must be natural, Do the math.
also, all the sinks that are operating on natural emissions are doing the same to anthropogenic emissions. Emissions from a smoke stack only has to travel to the nearest clouds to be absorbed and returned to the surface in rain. Roadside trees will consume most of the emissions from autos. Nature has its net zero from year-to-year.
Nick Stokes
November 22, 2022 7:37 pm
“B: How much would global net zero by 2050 cost the world?”
A para from the Business Times is quoted. Here it is, with the follow-up:
“In economic terms, spending on physical assets on the course to net-zero would reach about US$275 trillion by 2050, or US$9.2 trillion per year on average, an annual increase of US$3.5 trillion. To put it in comparable terms, the US$3.5 trillion increase is equivalent to about half of global corporate profits, one-quarter of total tax revenue, and 7 percent of household spending.
It’s worth remembering that not all of this spending should be counted as a cost; many net-zero related investments already deliver economic returns (over and above their role in avoiding the buildup of physical risks), and more will likely do so as the transition matures. These capital expenditures could cut costs through reduced fuel consumption, improved material and energy efficiency, and lower maintenance costs.“
$275T is a gross expenditure figure, and can’t be equated to net profit values.
Indeed, “It’s worth remembering that not all of this spending should be counted as a cost; many net-zero related investments already deliver economic returns”
Add the word “negative” between “deliver” and “economic” and I will agree. Destroying the western world’s economy and competitiveness is very likely to create massive poverty, and potentiate wars.
Please give an example of a solar panel, wind turbine, or utility battery producer using these systems solely to produce their products. If it is true that they can “cut costs through reduced fuel consumption, improved material and energy efficiency, and lower maintenance costs”, then surely, there should be many instances of this, no?
Notice how, in classic Stokesian manner, Stokes completely ignored the main point of the envelope calculation, which is that, using the IPCC’S own numbers, the effects on the Global Average Temperature will be immeasurably small, regardless of the exact value of this astronomical sum.
It is difficult to hypothesize an alternative plausible explanation for his act. There are apparently no depths of sophistry to which he will not stoop.
The McKinsey piece opens with: “People everywhere are living longer, healthier and more prosperous lives … … but here’s the terrible irony. That progress is threatening the very condition that made it possible: the stability of the earth’s climate. The effects of climate change are already visible, and they will only get worse if emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are not radically reduced …”.
That is their premise for which there is no empirical evidence and even if it were true and a ‘radical’ reduction of greenhouse gases were possible (which it isn’t) there would be no measurable effect on the climate as a result.
“These capital expenditures could cut costs through reduced fuel consumption, improved material and energy efficiency, and lower maintenance costs.“
Could.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. If they have economic merit then the market would already be implementing them. Of course, if one assumes a continuing discount rate of zero percent (not unknown amongst the climatists) this makes every green scheme infinitely affordable for ever.
If these capital expenditures were capable of cutting costs, etc, businesses would already be making them.
You don’t have to force companies to do things that save (or make) them money,
Nick:
Yes, some of the estimated $275T would be among the “no regrets” investments that Judith Curry has suggested. Most would not, and an untold amount will be siphoned off by governments, politicians, elites and other climate grifters. The feeding frenzy about “loss & damages” at COP27 is exhibit #1.
IIRC Mckinsey does list some caveats at the end of the report: { [xxx ] = my comments}
1) Much of the $275T needs to be front-loaded (early years) so the installed tech/changes have time to work [See #4].
2) No free-riders! All (> 85%) of the major economies/nations have to work together. [Yep, that will happen!]
3) All the new tech/infrastructure has to be installed a) on-time, b) on-budget, and c) work as predicted. [Has any government run system ever done this? (Maybe if Elon Musk was in charge. Sorry! I just read “Lift-Off” by Eric Berger – a fun read about SpaceX)]
4) Some of #3 has yet to be demonstrated at scale [or even invented!].
And finally, if by some magic #1-4 were accomplished by 2050, I doubt there would be a measurable change in the climate. As Lomborg has written, there are a lot of better things on which to spend money to improve the lot of mankind. [More bang for the buck]
My vote: drive world poverty to < 2% so humanity will be able to afford to adapt to whatever the climate has in store for us.
I believe the point is that the climate has always thrown things like hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc. at us, and there is no reason to believe that occurrence of such things is going to grind to a halt in the future.
Being wealthier means that society and individuals have more resources to both prepare for and recover from the inevitable.
Could you give the link to this? I don’t understand it, as written. What is the annual increasse of 3.5 trillion an increase on? It seems to be physical assets of some kind, but what?
I also don’t understand what conclusion you draw from this. Are you concluding that its a sensible use of the funds?
And what would you propose is a sensible reaction if, as is obviously happening over and over again, all the non-Western countries, doing in total 70%+ of global emissions, not only refuse to entertain reductions, but actually are increasing and are publicly announcing they intend increasing?
Would you still demand the West reduces, and if so why?
michel,
The link is here
I don’t conclude anything about whether it is a paying investment. Most is private money, and the investors will decide on that.
I think we’ll just have to reduce, and non-Western countries will see that too. We are all affected. But at the moment, renewables are attractive investments even without the climate benefits, especially with fuels so costly.
Great to see Klaus, Bill, Al Gore. all the other members of the WEF and UN etc etc are sending all their misbegotten wealth to help third world countries. 🙂
Except we all know that the “climate funds” will only go to enrich them further. !
Governments make requirements that people limit their pollution of the air. Do you think they shouldn’t? They leave it up to the firms to decide how to meet that requirement.
Nick,
If the West had put all its resources into developing its own fossil fuel energy, particularly natural gas, instead of useless renewables, there would be no energy crisis in the West. Instead we would have abundant, reliable, clean and cheap energy. We would be energy independent. Putin’s war would not cause an energy crisis in the West – in fact we – at least the UK and US – would have profited by exporting more natural gas at higher prices to the rest of the world.
Renewables are the problem, not the solution. They are actually a major cause of the energy crisis, because they sucked away the essential investment in energy sources that actually work.
In contrast, global warming is not a problem, it is a huge benefit. If it had not been for that warming we would still be in the depths of the Little Ice Age. The LIA was a catastrophe for mankind. Do you seriously want us to return to the cold, hunger and disease of the LIA? Really?
The data shows that deaths from extreme weather have dramatically fallen, that hurricanes have hardly changed since 1900, that a vast range of data (e.g. global rainfall) have been remarkably constant since 1900. According to peer reviewed science both sea level rise and glacier retreat have been extraordinaruly constant since both started in 1820, near the end of the LIA. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think SUV’s and mass air travel had really taken off in 1820.
As Climategate showed, much of climate science has been corrupted almost beyond recovery by money, politics, globalism and green fantasy. It is now so deeply ingrained that many scientists are incapable of recognising the problem. Like eugenics in the last century it will eventually come to an end. But I’m not holding my breath.
Chris
One constant with Nick, when he comes across a good lie, he never lets go of it.
1) The only reason why fossil fuels have gotten expensive is because Nick and his fellow climate scammers have restricted the development of fossil fuel resources.
2) It’s a complete lie that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, that has been shown over and over again.
“I think we’ll just have to reduce and non-Western countries will see that too”.
I don’t think there is any evidence that the non-Western countries are going to ‘see it’. All the evidence is that they simply do not buy in to CAGW and the need to reduce. Look at the conduct of both China and India at COP26. There is no way they are going to even freeze emissions, still less reduce. In fact, what they say and what they are doing is to increase as fast as economic growth requires.
Its not that they want to increase. Its that they want economic growth and are prepared to accept whatever increases this leads to.
There is therefore no reason to think will just have to reduce. On the contrary, the most likely outcome is that we will finally see that our reductions are having and can have no effect on the climate. They may reduce global emissions by a small amount, but the other countries will more than make that up by their increases. It will increasingly be obvious that Western reductions are totally pointless.
Then you say that renewables are attractive investments. Again, there is no evidence for this. There is nowhere that they are being installed at grid scale without huge government subsidies of one sort or another. Of which the most considerable is the requirement or buyers to buy their intermittent power generation while also having to pay the costs for rapid start backup to make it usable.
The only effect of installing wind and solar at grid scale is to increase dependency and use of gas generation. You can see this clearly in the chart Paul Homewood posted the other day. Gas in the UK was doing 50% of generation. Nuclear 12%. Wind down in low single figures. Solar tiny, as ever at this time of year and for the next three months.
Whatever your view of the problem, wind and solar are not a viable way of generating power for a modern economy. When people try, the effect of intermittency is simply to increase the consumption of gas. Now, you think that the result of adding wind and solar to the mix is to reduce fuel use from the gas plants enough to pay for the wind and solar installations.
This is the reverse of the way its usually portrayed, though it is accurate as to what is really going on. It really is gas supplemented by renewables, not the other way around.
But the argument is defective in two ways. One, I have never seen, and you haven’t ever produced, a proper DCF business case showing that the power savings from wind and solar in a primarily gas powered system will pay for the costs of installing and running the wind and solar.
The second thing is that the standard of comparison is anyway not gas with or without wind and solar. The standard of comparison is the combination of wind and solar and gas versus modern supercritical coal fired generation. Again, I have never seen a case showing that wind and solar with the required addition of gas backup is cost effective compared to just running coal.
Get a copy of Brealey and Myers and do a proper DCF analysis. Just the process of working through how investment appraisal is practised in big companies today will be enlightening. You’ll see that its not a matter of how we feel. Its a real quantitative discipline. This is what is needed to make the case for renewables, and I think it very revealing that it never seems to have been done by their advocates.
“Get a copy of Brealey and Myers and do a proper DCF analysis. Just the process of working through how investment appraisal is practised in big companies today will be enlightening. You’ll see that its not a matter of how we feel. Its a real quantitative discipline. This is what is needed to make the case for renewables, and I think it very revealing that it never seems to have been done by their advocates.”
Yes, that is what big companies do when they want to raise money or invest it. I am not one. But the revealing thing is that big companies are doing that, and investing heavily in renewables. They have noticed that the fuel is free, and done the sums.
This is a classic example of what I am talking about. The idea that when it comes to investment decisions one can rely on arm waving generalizations. The refusal to accept that what is needed is the disciplines that are universal in business life.
You are a mathematician. You would never tolerate this kind of vague arm waving about your own discipline. Investment appraisal is a similar rigorous quantitative discipline and its completely naive to think you can rely on these sorts of vague generalities.
I am talking about the statement that ‘the fuel is free’. This is meaningless and justifies nothing.
Consider sailing ships, as a for instance. The fuel (the wind) you will say, is free. Does that mean that sailing ships deliver better returns than oil fired freighters?
Of course not! The cost of the wind is immaterial. What counts is the total cost of operation over the life of the asset. And to get a proper picture of this you have to make the products comparable. In the example, same capacity, same speed of transit. Or you have to adjust your value of service and your income streams delivered to match the differences.
You also have to take into account staffing and maintenance costs, at which point you start to notice that while the wind may be free, sails certainly are not, and they need replacing every so often and setting and reefing by skilled personnel.
The fact that the fuel (the wind) in a wind farm is free tells you nothing, absolutely nothing, about whether a wind farm is a better investment than a coal plant.
I do not believe that absent subsidies (which include compulsory purchases) for wind power anyone would build one. The wind is free. The farms and their operation are not. The farms, particularly offshore ones, have a limited life, require duplicate generating capacity in the form of gas plant to make their product usable, require expensive additional transmission capacity and require constraint payments when they over generate. Its only the subsidies that make the investments in them attractive.
The challenge for you is to stop chanting these meaningless slogans like ‘the fuel is free’ and do the DCF analysis that will make the case. Or point to a specimen that someone has already done. Leaving out subsidies. I don’t know of any, and think this is because no rigorous case can be made.
If this were true, government would not have to subsidize and mandate such investments.
Earthling2
November 22, 2022 10:21 pm
Anthro CO2 (and methane) emissions were greatly reduced by the pandemic for almost 2 years, and it didn’t really register at all on the annual CO2 meter, anywhere. Maybe it takes 9-10 years to appear as a blip, since the elephant in the room is the annual oscillation of atmospheric CO2 via the rotting vegetation from one hemisphere or the other every season by rotting to methane and then later to CO2 and water vapor which takes about 9-10 years, and always going on from natural processes.
But maybe even if we do spend hundreds of Trillions over 30 years reducing emissions, there may not be much CO2 reduction at all. The natural warming that began circa 1850 warming the oceans is undoubtedly responsible for at least getting back to ~300+ ppmv, and any natural warm period of 150+ years of natural warming would see additional out gassing from the warming oceans. While we have undoubtedly also released additional anthro CO2 as well, there is no getting back to 300+ ppmv until the oceans cool and absorb that extra bit of CO2. We would just flat line at best and stay at a static level until a natural cooling event.
Anyway, doubling next to nothing, is still next to nothing, as per .0414 % CO2 now in the atmosphere. They say normal should be about .0320% for this point in the interglacial as per previous interglacials and could they even register 400 ppmv for a 150 years, 100,000 years ago? And correlation might not be causation anyway. We had previous ice ages in long distant times when CO2 levels were much higher than now, other factors notwithstanding.
CO2 production was not greatly reduced by the pandemic.
There was about a 15 percent reduction for around three months. However energy use quickly returned to normal.
Yes, a lot of office workers were sent home, however not all of them were. As a result office buildings still had to be heated/cooled/lit. At the same time millions of home offices were created, all of which had to be heated/cooled/lit.
Very few factories were shut down for more than a few weeks, as owners scrambled to find ways to keep them running while following the new COVID guidelines.
But the point being that even with the 15% reductions which was quite substantial in much less activity in the early days of the pandemic, they want us to reduce and replicate that 15% and more, as if we were in a perpetual pandemic. And then worse if they want to get to Net Zero by 2050 or sooner. It couldn’t be done, even if CO2 was a real problem. Luckily, CO2 isn’t a problem, and is a major contributor to the success of civilization on so many levels.
But this fixation with Net Zero is not only impossible, but what would you even measure it against? Natural emissions are 20x larger than anthro, and if natural emissions are fluctuating, we have no real way to measure the effect that humans reducing emissions could be even calculated correctly. The whole thing isn’t even measurable over the next 30 years due to not even knowing natural fluctuation in the carbon cycle. Just like we don’t even really know natural variability in the climate.
I don’t like the idea of calculating the cost in dollars because its an unachievable goal and an incromprehsible number. Goverments that push climate change too hard are already facing open revolts (Holland, France, farmers), countries are facing food poverty (Sri Lanka), and wind farms being bull dozed to make way for coal mines in a desparate attempt to keep Germany and Europe from freezing in the dark this winter.
Put the calcs in terms of human lives and number of billions pushed into abject poverty. People don’t understand trillions or dollars, its just a number. Show them that 75% of the middle class will lose their homes and live out of whatever hovel their government allows them, if they are lucky enough to live in a country where they don’t jut starve or freeze to death first or even have a hovel at all.
This is the reality of net zero, money is just an indirect way of saying oops, you will not be able to afford food and housing anymore. So say that. What percentage of people does that equate to dying from food shortages, heat poverty, losing their homes and jobs altogether. You can spend $25 Trillion to transform the economy, but you still have no economy left when you are done.
I agree with you that even for reasonably intelligent people some of this is a little difficult. Using an analogy illustrating this with the reduction in houses and cars and food for the average community and family would translate these huge numbers into terms that could be more easily understood.
However, I think this needs to be done using visuals, pictures, cartoons and the like. Even if this is a very serious matter, if people laugh at the alarmist claims and demands we would be on our way to winning the argument. Something like the king’s jester in ancient times who could drive home important truths with humour without risking his life.
Well, the real point in this is that Net Zero for the world is not going to happen. As long as China, India, Indonesia etc are going to keep emitting and to increase. And we should take them at their word on this. Every international meeting they refuse even to consider freezing emissions, and the bottom line of what they say is that they are intending increasing. Their target is economic growth, and they will allow emissions to rise as much as it takes to maximize it.
I agree with Christopher that if the alarmists are correct Net Zero by 2050 is pointless. But I don’t see that as being the most important point to make. The two most important points are:
1) It ain’t going to happen given the refusal of the non-Western countries to even entertain the idea of freezing or reducing.
2) We have anyway no means of reaching it, even if the whole world was willing, without almost total de-industrialization, banning cars and stopping heating homes. And that is politically impossible, both in the West and in the rest of the world.
Try and imagine what happens in China if the regime announces it is going to take the steps to take emissions to zero by 2050 starting now. Try and imagine the same thing in India. There is no way they can do this, even if they want to. There is no way the US or Europe can do it, either, and for the same reason.
The UK at the moment is experiencing the consequences of trying to take its power generation to wind and solar. The other day Paul Homewood posted a chart showing gas accounting for 50% of generation, nuclear another 12%. This is entirely down to intermittency of wind and solar. There is no escaping it, the only way of making these sources of generation at all usable is to install total backup from gas generation, and expect to use it.
Nick Stokes argues that the wind and the solar produce fuel savings in this scenario that make them sensible investments, and the combination of gas wind and solar better than gas alone. But neither he nor anyone else I know of has ever produced a properly worked out business case showing that.
All the UK has been able to do by moving to wind and solar is increase its dependence on gas.
Add to that the fact that 85% of UK homes are heated by gas, and its obvious that Net Zero can’t be done at a social cost which the electorate will find acceptable.
Try explaining to people that they have to have indoor temperatures in winter of around 15C – actually in January and February it would fall to more like 10C. And that they will not be able to afford cars, and if they can, they will not be able to afford to charge them, and if they can, the power to charge them will be rationed. And that mass unemployment is on its way.
Its a route to getting thrown out of government for a generation. Maybe forever. Its not going to happen.
The world is going to be emitting north of 45 billion tons a year by 2050, like it or not. The alarmists are eventually going to have to admit this and live with it.
Please understand, in the timelines stated it won’t happen, even in the west it won’t happen, because it can’t.
All commercial industry depends on fossil fuels, fleets and fleets of fossil fuel vehicles and industrial equipment. The infrastructure requirements to be replaced are beyond our resources, the grid requirements cannot be done. It will not happen. The effort will break the world. They may want that.
Prime Minister Sunak must either be dumb – which I do not believe – or deliberately disingenuous when he ignores presentations like this. If he took this matter to heart he would go all out to restore the use of the available fossil fuels in the UK. He could become the leader in the Western world of more efficient and cleaner use of fossil fuels – which I have already seen steadily happening over the past fifty years. We just need one good leader with courage to get his country to set an example. Will that be Sunak? Do not hold your breath. 😉
Michael in Dublin is right. The economic argument is definitive, but the Conservative Party is both scientifically and economically illiterate and is terrified of the reputational damage it would suffer if it dared to oppose the climate-Communist party line.
YouTube has done this to Tony Heller- they drastically cut his views when he says he knows his views were much higher. He said this happened while his subscribtion numbers were going way up. Makes no sense. It sounds conspiratorial but I believe it since I have a lot of confidence in Tony.
Michael in Dublin and Mr Zorzin are both correct. YouTube has shadow-banned my videos by delinking them from its search engine. The censorship by Google/YouTube is active and determined, and is a flagrant denial of free speech.
Many thanks to Mr Dibbell for his kind comment. The matter is indeed straightforward. In fact, the true picture is even worse than the head posting suggests.
Christopher, I take your point as expressed in the graphs, though I find them a bit hard to follow.
But can it not be expressed more simply in quantitative terms, somewhat as follows, in a few numbers?
1) The total atmospheric CO2 today in tons
2) The total that will be emitted if the trend continues in a straight line
3) The resulting total in atmospheric content in tons
4) The total that will be emitted if Net Zero is implemented in a straight line
5) The resulting total in atmospheric content in tons
6) The difference between #5 and #3 as a percentage of #1.
The point you’re making is similar to what Lomborg said about Paris, that even if you accept the IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity, Paris reductions were too small to have any material effect.
Yes, and the insistence by the political leaders of US, UK, Australia and NZ on doing this anyway is weird. Even weirder is their insistence on their own countries embarking on it, when no-one else is. It will be written up by future historians as a classic collective delusion.
Please, please, please – the Paris Accords were never a treaty, and are non-binding. President Obama went to a lot of effort to make sure that that agreement did not have to be submitted to the US Senate for advice and consent. It is not a treaty, and it is non-binding.
So the best case is less than the uncertainty in the models?
It’s less than the uncertainty in the data.
No, the best case is that you will be long dead by 2050 and won’t have to put up with this nonsense any longer.
If I make it to January 1st, 2050 (my 102nd birthday), I’m going to ignore my cardiologist’s advice and have a fantastic meal consisting of the things I’m not supposed to eat.
The truth is there is no accumulation in the atmosphere from year-to-year. All the sinks operate on both natural and anthro emissions (clouds, trees,.cold wet soil, lakes. and finally the cold polar waters.There is buildup (accumulation) over ice as it freezes but is rapidly consumed by frigid waters as the ice melts. Regress Arctic monthly atmospheric CO2 concentrations with months and Arctic monthly sea-ice concentrations. Natural emissions are at least 20 times more than anthros, so only a slight increase in natural emissions can produce the observed year-to-year increase in atmospheric.
concentration.Compare the observed annual average CO2 year-to-year increase with the year-to-year increase in burning fossil fuel emissions of CO2 and draw your own conclusions..
Fred, the 2 ppm annual CO2 increase is about 1/2 of human emissions. Yes, natural emissions are about 20 times higher, but would imply that some natural source is increasing every year to show up at Mauna Loa and would have to have increased by 30% over the time of Keeling’s record, so should easily be identifiable…
But nobody has come up with a natural phenomenon that would rationally explain the increased CO2, whereas the CO2 emissions number from human sources is a reasonable estimate. The amount of warming versus the amount of CO2 in presence of convection, clouds, rainfall, aerosols in a real climate is a much less distinct number, and the effect of a degree or two warming on a human population is the same difference as 2 cities 300 miles apart in latitude….so not really a problem…undo the top button of your sweater….
The equatorial oceans have been warming for years (since the little ice age).That warming has evaporated a lot of water. The CO2 contained in that water was released into the atmosphere. Most of that water condenses into clouds and that water is returned to the surface as rain.That rain absorbs most of the CO2 and returns it to the surface. However, a fraction shoots out the top of thunder clouds to be transported to the poles by jet streams. The amounts reaching the Arctic and Antarctic are much greater than all anthropogenic emissions. That amount must be natural, Do the math.
also, all the sinks that are operating on natural emissions are doing the same to anthropogenic emissions. Emissions from a smoke stack only has to travel to the nearest clouds to be absorbed and returned to the surface in rain. Roadside trees will consume most of the emissions from autos. Nature has its net zero from year-to-year.
“B: How much would global net zero by 2050 cost the world?”
A para from the Business Times is quoted. Here it is, with the follow-up:
“In economic terms, spending on physical assets on the course to net-zero would reach about US$275 trillion by 2050, or US$9.2 trillion per year on average, an annual increase of US$3.5 trillion. To put it in comparable terms, the US$3.5 trillion increase is equivalent to about half of global corporate profits, one-quarter of total tax revenue, and 7 percent of household spending.
It’s worth remembering that not all of this spending should be counted as a cost; many net-zero related investments already deliver economic returns (over and above their role in avoiding the buildup of physical risks), and more will likely do so as the transition matures. These capital expenditures could cut costs through reduced fuel consumption, improved material and energy efficiency, and lower maintenance costs.“
$275T is a gross expenditure figure, and can’t be equated to net profit values.
“It’s worth remembering that not all of this spending should be counted as a cost”
Subsidies, wasted money, dictators’/bureaucrats’ back pockets.
And no , they have been proven time and time again to greatly increase costs to consumers.
You are quoting the very McKinsey article that Lord M relies on for his $275T claim.
And you seem to have a reading problem.
So, nothing to counter the facts.. OK.
Just blather, Nick.. its what you do !
Indeed, “It’s worth remembering that not all of this spending should be counted as a cost; many net-zero related investments already deliver economic returns”
Add the word “negative” between “deliver” and “economic” and I will agree. Destroying the western world’s economy and competitiveness is very likely to create massive poverty, and potentiate wars.
So where and what is a better estimate for expenditure?
how about the immense cost of shutting down perfectly functioning power plants of all sorts
Please give an example of a solar panel, wind turbine, or utility battery producer using these systems solely to produce their products. If it is true that they can “cut costs through reduced fuel consumption, improved material and energy efficiency, and lower maintenance costs”, then surely, there should be many instances of this, no?
How much of your own personal paycheck are you willing to donate to the Great Net Zero Scam, Nitpick Nick?
Notice how, in classic Stokesian manner, Stokes completely ignored the main point of the envelope calculation, which is that, using the IPCC’S own numbers, the effects on the Global Average Temperature will be immeasurably small, regardless of the exact value of this astronomical sum.
Nick is paid to defend the global warming narrative. He is not paid to present accurate information.
It is difficult to hypothesize an alternative plausible explanation for his act. There are apparently no depths of sophistry to which he will not stoop.
The McKinsey piece opens with:
“People everywhere are living longer, healthier and more prosperous lives …
… but here’s the terrible irony. That progress is threatening the very condition that made it possible: the stability of the earth’s climate. The effects of climate change are already visible, and they will only get worse if emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are not radically reduced …”.
That is their premise for which there is no empirical evidence and even if it were true and a ‘radical’ reduction of greenhouse gases were possible (which it isn’t) there would be no measurable effect on the climate as a result.
“These capital expenditures could cut costs through reduced fuel consumption, improved material and energy efficiency, and lower maintenance costs.“
Could.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. If they have economic merit then the market would already be implementing them. Of course, if one assumes a continuing discount rate of zero percent (not unknown amongst the climatists) this makes every green scheme infinitely affordable for ever.
If these capital expenditures were capable of cutting costs, etc, businesses would already be making them.
You don’t have to force companies to do things that save (or make) them money,
Nick:
Yes, some of the estimated $275T would be among the “no regrets” investments that Judith Curry has suggested. Most would not, and an untold amount will be siphoned off by governments, politicians, elites and other climate grifters. The feeding frenzy about “loss & damages” at COP27 is exhibit #1.
IIRC Mckinsey does list some caveats at the end of the report: { [xxx ] = my comments}
1) Much of the $275T needs to be front-loaded (early years) so the installed tech/changes have time to work [See #4].
2) No free-riders! All (> 85%) of the major economies/nations have to work together. [Yep, that will happen!]
3) All the new tech/infrastructure has to be installed a) on-time, b) on-budget, and c) work as predicted. [Has any government run system ever done this? (Maybe if Elon Musk was in charge. Sorry! I just read “Lift-Off” by Eric Berger – a fun read about SpaceX)]
4) Some of #3 has yet to be demonstrated at scale [or even invented!].
And finally, if by some magic #1-4 were accomplished by 2050, I doubt there would be a measurable change in the climate. As Lomborg has written, there are a lot of better things on which to spend money to improve the lot of mankind. [More bang for the buck]
My vote: drive world poverty to < 2% so humanity will be able to afford to adapt to whatever the climate has in store for us.
“and other climate grifters”
Remember.. Nick used to be one…. so has to support the cause. !
“whatever the climate has in store for us”
Like milder winters, longer growing seasons, more land becoming available for agriculture, faster tree growth, fewer people dying from the cold, etc.
I believe the point is that the climate has always thrown things like hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc. at us, and there is no reason to believe that occurrence of such things is going to grind to a halt in the future.
Being wealthier means that society and individuals have more resources to both prepare for and recover from the inevitable.
It is a safe bet that any “no regrets” investments are already being made.
Could you give the link to this? I don’t understand it, as written. What is the annual increasse of 3.5 trillion an increase on? It seems to be physical assets of some kind, but what?
I also don’t understand what conclusion you draw from this. Are you concluding that its a sensible use of the funds?
And what would you propose is a sensible reaction if, as is obviously happening over and over again, all the non-Western countries, doing in total 70%+ of global emissions, not only refuse to entertain reductions, but actually are increasing and are publicly announcing they intend increasing?
Would you still demand the West reduces, and if so why?
michel,
The link is here
I don’t conclude anything about whether it is a paying investment. Most is private money, and the investors will decide on that.
I think we’ll just have to reduce, and non-Western countries will see that too. We are all affected. But at the moment, renewables are attractive investments even without the climate benefits, especially with fuels so costly.
“We are all affected.”
Yes we ARE all affected by the climate com/scam.
It digs deep into our pockets and our way of life..
… and they intend to dig even deeper.
Human forced temperature change, just affects urban areas and is compensated for by air-conditioners.
“non-Western countries will see that too”
Through the un-elected ex-third-world dictators of the UN ??
Or will they just continue to beg for money for made-up “climate” crises.
Maybe they should put a stop to kids digging for cobalt and lithium.. that’d teach us 😉
“Most is private money,”
Great to see Klaus, Bill, Al Gore. all the other members of the WEF and UN etc etc are sending all their misbegotten wealth to help third world countries. 🙂
Except we all know that the “climate funds” will only go to enrich them further. !
According to Nick, when the government orders a company to spend money on X, then that money is still “private” money.
Governments do not order companies to spend money on X, at least in western democracies.
Specious falsehood!
All those scrubbers in coal plants were what? The catalytic converters were what? All the different gasoline blends were what?
Governments make requirements that people limit their pollution of the air. Do you think they shouldn’t? They leave it up to the firms to decide how to meet that requirement.
Well, at least you admit governments DO require companies to spend on X. You may defend X, but don’t be a silly and deny it.
The list of laws the government makes companies spend money on is stupendous. Sometimes you say such silly things.
Nick,
If the West had put all its resources into developing its own fossil fuel energy, particularly natural gas, instead of useless renewables, there would be no energy crisis in the West. Instead we would have abundant, reliable, clean and cheap energy. We would be energy independent. Putin’s war would not cause an energy crisis in the West – in fact we – at least the UK and US – would have profited by exporting more natural gas at higher prices to the rest of the world.
Renewables are the problem, not the solution. They are actually a major cause of the energy crisis, because they sucked away the essential investment in energy sources that actually work.
In contrast, global warming is not a problem, it is a huge benefit. If it had not been for that warming we would still be in the depths of the Little Ice Age. The LIA was a catastrophe for mankind. Do you seriously want us to return to the cold, hunger and disease of the LIA? Really?
The data shows that deaths from extreme weather have dramatically fallen, that hurricanes have hardly changed since 1900, that a vast range of data (e.g. global rainfall) have been remarkably constant since 1900. According to peer reviewed science both sea level rise and glacier retreat have been extraordinaruly constant since both started in 1820, near the end of the LIA. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think SUV’s and mass air travel had really taken off in 1820.
As Climategate showed, much of climate science has been corrupted almost beyond recovery by money, politics, globalism and green fantasy. It is now so deeply ingrained that many scientists are incapable of recognising the problem. Like eugenics in the last century it will eventually come to an end. But I’m not holding my breath.
Chris
Excellent summary- but why can’t an essay like that be seen in the MSM?
One constant with Nick, when he comes across a good lie, he never lets go of it.
1) The only reason why fossil fuels have gotten expensive is because Nick and his fellow climate scammers have restricted the development of fossil fuel resources.
2) It’s a complete lie that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, that has been shown over and over again.
So attractive that all five of Europe’s wind turbine manufacturers are currently making huge losses. 🙂
Thanks. The things we differ on are:
“I think we’ll just have to reduce and non-Western countries will see that too”.
I don’t think there is any evidence that the non-Western countries are going to ‘see it’. All the evidence is that they simply do not buy in to CAGW and the need to reduce. Look at the conduct of both China and India at COP26. There is no way they are going to even freeze emissions, still less reduce. In fact, what they say and what they are doing is to increase as fast as economic growth requires.
Its not that they want to increase. Its that they want economic growth and are prepared to accept whatever increases this leads to.
There is therefore no reason to think will just have to reduce. On the contrary, the most likely outcome is that we will finally see that our reductions are having and can have no effect on the climate. They may reduce global emissions by a small amount, but the other countries will more than make that up by their increases. It will increasingly be obvious that Western reductions are totally pointless.
Then you say that renewables are attractive investments. Again, there is no evidence for this. There is nowhere that they are being installed at grid scale without huge government subsidies of one sort or another. Of which the most considerable is the requirement or buyers to buy their intermittent power generation while also having to pay the costs for rapid start backup to make it usable.
The only effect of installing wind and solar at grid scale is to increase dependency and use of gas generation. You can see this clearly in the chart Paul Homewood posted the other day. Gas in the UK was doing 50% of generation. Nuclear 12%. Wind down in low single figures. Solar tiny, as ever at this time of year and for the next three months.
Whatever your view of the problem, wind and solar are not a viable way of generating power for a modern economy. When people try, the effect of intermittency is simply to increase the consumption of gas. Now, you think that the result of adding wind and solar to the mix is to reduce fuel use from the gas plants enough to pay for the wind and solar installations.
This is the reverse of the way its usually portrayed, though it is accurate as to what is really going on. It really is gas supplemented by renewables, not the other way around.
But the argument is defective in two ways. One, I have never seen, and you haven’t ever produced, a proper DCF business case showing that the power savings from wind and solar in a primarily gas powered system will pay for the costs of installing and running the wind and solar.
The second thing is that the standard of comparison is anyway not gas with or without wind and solar. The standard of comparison is the combination of wind and solar and gas versus modern supercritical coal fired generation. Again, I have never seen a case showing that wind and solar with the required addition of gas backup is cost effective compared to just running coal.
Get a copy of Brealey and Myers and do a proper DCF analysis. Just the process of working through how investment appraisal is practised in big companies today will be enlightening. You’ll see that its not a matter of how we feel. Its a real quantitative discipline. This is what is needed to make the case for renewables, and I think it very revealing that it never seems to have been done by their advocates.
“Get a copy of Brealey and Myers and do a proper DCF analysis. Just the process of working through how investment appraisal is practised in big companies today will be enlightening. You’ll see that its not a matter of how we feel. Its a real quantitative discipline. This is what is needed to make the case for renewables, and I think it very revealing that it never seems to have been done by their advocates.”
Yes, that is what big companies do when they want to raise money or invest it. I am not one. But the revealing thing is that big companies are doing that, and investing heavily in renewables. They have noticed that the fuel is free, and done the sums.
LOL, you say the darndest things…
“They have noticed that the fuel is free, and done the sums.”
Certainly you meant… They have noticed that the subsidies are free, the market is guaranteed, and the competition is handicapped.
This is a classic example of what I am talking about. The idea that when it comes to investment decisions one can rely on arm waving generalizations. The refusal to accept that what is needed is the disciplines that are universal in business life.
You are a mathematician. You would never tolerate this kind of vague arm waving about your own discipline. Investment appraisal is a similar rigorous quantitative discipline and its completely naive to think you can rely on these sorts of vague generalities.
I am talking about the statement that ‘the fuel is free’. This is meaningless and justifies nothing.
Consider sailing ships, as a for instance. The fuel (the wind) you will say, is free. Does that mean that sailing ships deliver better returns than oil fired freighters?
Of course not! The cost of the wind is immaterial. What counts is the total cost of operation over the life of the asset. And to get a proper picture of this you have to make the products comparable. In the example, same capacity, same speed of transit. Or you have to adjust your value of service and your income streams delivered to match the differences.
You also have to take into account staffing and maintenance costs, at which point you start to notice that while the wind may be free, sails certainly are not, and they need replacing every so often and setting and reefing by skilled personnel.
The fact that the fuel (the wind) in a wind farm is free tells you nothing, absolutely nothing, about whether a wind farm is a better investment than a coal plant.
I do not believe that absent subsidies (which include compulsory purchases) for wind power anyone would build one. The wind is free. The farms and their operation are not. The farms, particularly offshore ones, have a limited life, require duplicate generating capacity in the form of gas plant to make their product usable, require expensive additional transmission capacity and require constraint payments when they over generate. Its only the subsidies that make the investments in them attractive.
The challenge for you is to stop chanting these meaningless slogans like ‘the fuel is free’ and do the DCF analysis that will make the case. Or point to a specimen that someone has already done. Leaving out subsidies. I don’t know of any, and think this is because no rigorous case can be made.
If this were true, government would not have to subsidize and mandate such investments.
Anthro CO2 (and methane) emissions were greatly reduced by the pandemic for almost 2 years, and it didn’t really register at all on the annual CO2 meter, anywhere. Maybe it takes 9-10 years to appear as a blip, since the elephant in the room is the annual oscillation of atmospheric CO2 via the rotting vegetation from one hemisphere or the other every season by rotting to methane and then later to CO2 and water vapor which takes about 9-10 years, and always going on from natural processes.
But maybe even if we do spend hundreds of Trillions over 30 years reducing emissions, there may not be much CO2 reduction at all. The natural warming that began circa 1850 warming the oceans is undoubtedly responsible for at least getting back to ~300+ ppmv, and any natural warm period of 150+ years of natural warming would see additional out gassing from the warming oceans. While we have undoubtedly also released additional anthro CO2 as well, there is no getting back to 300+ ppmv until the oceans cool and absorb that extra bit of CO2. We would just flat line at best and stay at a static level until a natural cooling event.
Anyway, doubling next to nothing, is still next to nothing, as per .0414 % CO2 now in the atmosphere. They say normal should be about .0320% for this point in the interglacial as per previous interglacials and could they even register 400 ppmv for a 150 years, 100,000 years ago? And correlation might not be causation anyway. We had previous ice ages in long distant times when CO2 levels were much higher than now, other factors notwithstanding.
CO2 production was not greatly reduced by the pandemic.
There was about a 15 percent reduction for around three months. However energy use quickly returned to normal.
Yes, a lot of office workers were sent home, however not all of them were. As a result office buildings still had to be heated/cooled/lit. At the same time millions of home offices were created, all of which had to be heated/cooled/lit.
Very few factories were shut down for more than a few weeks, as owners scrambled to find ways to keep them running while following the new COVID guidelines.
But the point being that even with the 15% reductions which was quite substantial in much less activity in the early days of the pandemic, they want us to reduce and replicate that 15% and more, as if we were in a perpetual pandemic. And then worse if they want to get to Net Zero by 2050 or sooner. It couldn’t be done, even if CO2 was a real problem. Luckily, CO2 isn’t a problem, and is a major contributor to the success of civilization on so many levels.
But this fixation with Net Zero is not only impossible, but what would you even measure it against? Natural emissions are 20x larger than anthro, and if natural emissions are fluctuating, we have no real way to measure the effect that humans reducing emissions could be even calculated correctly. The whole thing isn’t even measurable over the next 30 years due to not even knowing natural fluctuation in the carbon cycle. Just like we don’t even really know natural variability in the climate.
I don’t like the idea of calculating the cost in dollars because its an unachievable goal and an incromprehsible number. Goverments that push climate change too hard are already facing open revolts (Holland, France, farmers), countries are facing food poverty (Sri Lanka), and wind farms being bull dozed to make way for coal mines in a desparate attempt to keep Germany and Europe from freezing in the dark this winter.
Put the calcs in terms of human lives and number of billions pushed into abject poverty. People don’t understand trillions or dollars, its just a number. Show them that 75% of the middle class will lose their homes and live out of whatever hovel their government allows them, if they are lucky enough to live in a country where they don’t jut starve or freeze to death first or even have a hovel at all.
This is the reality of net zero, money is just an indirect way of saying oops, you will not be able to afford food and housing anymore. So say that. What percentage of people does that equate to dying from food shortages, heat poverty, losing their homes and jobs altogether. You can spend $25 Trillion to transform the economy, but you still have no economy left when you are done.
David
I agree with you that even for reasonably intelligent people some of this is a little difficult. Using an analogy illustrating this with the reduction in houses and cars and food for the average community and family would translate these huge numbers into terms that could be more easily understood.
However, I think this needs to be done using visuals, pictures, cartoons and the like. Even if this is a very serious matter, if people laugh at the alarmist claims and demands we would be on our way to winning the argument. Something like the king’s jester in ancient times who could drive home important truths with humour without risking his life.
Net zero is 20 GtCO2/year which translates to RCP4.5
Well, the real point in this is that Net Zero for the world is not going to happen. As long as China, India, Indonesia etc are going to keep emitting and to increase. And we should take them at their word on this. Every international meeting they refuse even to consider freezing emissions, and the bottom line of what they say is that they are intending increasing. Their target is economic growth, and they will allow emissions to rise as much as it takes to maximize it.
I agree with Christopher that if the alarmists are correct Net Zero by 2050 is pointless. But I don’t see that as being the most important point to make. The two most important points are:
1) It ain’t going to happen given the refusal of the non-Western countries to even entertain the idea of freezing or reducing.
2) We have anyway no means of reaching it, even if the whole world was willing, without almost total de-industrialization, banning cars and stopping heating homes. And that is politically impossible, both in the West and in the rest of the world.
Try and imagine what happens in China if the regime announces it is going to take the steps to take emissions to zero by 2050 starting now. Try and imagine the same thing in India. There is no way they can do this, even if they want to. There is no way the US or Europe can do it, either, and for the same reason.
The UK at the moment is experiencing the consequences of trying to take its power generation to wind and solar. The other day Paul Homewood posted a chart showing gas accounting for 50% of generation, nuclear another 12%. This is entirely down to intermittency of wind and solar. There is no escaping it, the only way of making these sources of generation at all usable is to install total backup from gas generation, and expect to use it.
Nick Stokes argues that the wind and the solar produce fuel savings in this scenario that make them sensible investments, and the combination of gas wind and solar better than gas alone. But neither he nor anyone else I know of has ever produced a properly worked out business case showing that.
All the UK has been able to do by moving to wind and solar is increase its dependence on gas.
Add to that the fact that 85% of UK homes are heated by gas, and its obvious that Net Zero can’t be done at a social cost which the electorate will find acceptable.
Try explaining to people that they have to have indoor temperatures in winter of around 15C – actually in January and February it would fall to more like 10C. And that they will not be able to afford cars, and if they can, they will not be able to afford to charge them, and if they can, the power to charge them will be rationed. And that mass unemployment is on its way.
Its a route to getting thrown out of government for a generation. Maybe forever. Its not going to happen.
The world is going to be emitting north of 45 billion tons a year by 2050, like it or not. The alarmists are eventually going to have to admit this and live with it.
Please understand, in the timelines stated it won’t happen, even in the west it won’t happen, because it can’t.
All commercial industry depends on fossil fuels, fleets and fleets of fossil fuel vehicles and industrial equipment. The infrastructure requirements to be replaced are beyond our resources, the grid requirements cannot be done. It will not happen. The effort will break the world. They may want that.
Prime Minister Sunak must either be dumb – which I do not believe – or deliberately disingenuous when he ignores presentations like this. If he took this matter to heart he would go all out to restore the use of the available fossil fuels in the UK. He could become the leader in the Western world of more efficient and cleaner use of fossil fuels – which I have already seen steadily happening over the past fifty years. We just need one good leader with courage to get his country to set an example. Will that be Sunak? Do not hold your breath. 😉
Michael in Dublin is right. The economic argument is definitive, but the Conservative Party is both scientifically and economically illiterate and is terrified of the reputational damage it would suffer if it dared to oppose the climate-Communist party line.
Notice how Youtube is discrediting this video with their stats.
To date they say there have been only 123 views in 10 days.
YouTube has done this to Tony Heller- they drastically cut his views when he says he knows his views were much higher. He said this happened while his subscribtion numbers were going way up. Makes no sense. It sounds conspiratorial but I believe it since I have a lot of confidence in Tony.
Michael in Dublin and Mr Zorzin are both correct. YouTube has shadow-banned my videos by delinking them from its search engine. The censorship by Google/YouTube is active and determined, and is a flagrant denial of free speech.
Switch to Rumble and give google the boot.
Monckton of Brenchley, thank you for this exercise and for the video. Very straightforward.
Many thanks to Mr Dibbell for his kind comment. The matter is indeed straightforward. In fact, the true picture is even worse than the head posting suggests.
Love it, but “an” envelope???
Christopher, I take your point as expressed in the graphs, though I find them a bit hard to follow.
But can it not be expressed more simply in quantitative terms, somewhat as follows, in a few numbers?
1) The total atmospheric CO2 today in tons
2) The total that will be emitted if the trend continues in a straight line
3) The resulting total in atmospheric content in tons
4) The total that will be emitted if Net Zero is implemented in a straight line
5) The resulting total in atmospheric content in tons
6) The difference between #5 and #3 as a percentage of #1.
The point you’re making is similar to what Lomborg said about Paris, that even if you accept the IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity, Paris reductions were too small to have any material effect.
Yes, and the insistence by the political leaders of US, UK, Australia and NZ on doing this anyway is weird. Even weirder is their insistence on their own countries embarking on it, when no-one else is. It will be written up by future historians as a classic collective delusion.
No spending is necessary because there is no evidence CO2 needs to be regulated or curtailed.
Therefore, any spending done to rein in CO2 is wasted money.
So the question should be how much money have we wasted so far trying to rein in CO2?
The next question should be why should we continue with this insanity?
Please, please, please – the Paris Accords were never a treaty, and are non-binding. President Obama went to a lot of effort to make sure that that agreement did not have to be submitted to the US Senate for advice and consent. It is not a treaty, and it is non-binding.