SMH: “[AU] $300 trillion is needed to stop global warming, and that’s a bargain”

Essay by Eric Worrall

The preservation of civilisation is all yours, for the bargain price of US $196 trillion (AU $300 trillion).

$300 trillion is needed to stop global warming, and that’s a bargain

Mark Gongloff
July 6, 2023 — 8.45am

What price tag would you put on preserving a functioning human civilisation? Would $300 trillion just about cover it? Could that even be a bargain?

Bloomberg’s green-energy research team, BNEF, estimates in a new report this week it could cost $US196 trillion ($295 trillion) in investments to zero out the world’s carbon emissions by 2050, as many countries have pledged to do, to avoid society-destroying global warming.

It probably won’t shock you to learn the world’s net-zero pledges haven’t yet been followed by the hard cash, or even promises of hard cash, necessary to make them a reality.

As shockingly large as these numbers may seem, they are minimal compared with the likely price tag for doing nothing. Insurance giant Swiss Re has estimated that runaway global warming could gouge $US23 trillion per year from global GDP, with developed economies possibly 10 per cent smaller than they should be in a cooler world. By such measures, spending $US200 trillion over 27 years sounds relatively cheap.

Read more:

The Swiss Re estimate of $23 trillion per year;

Climate change: The real costs to Asia Pacific

Russell HigginbothamChief Executive Officer, Reinsurance SolutionsView profile of Russell Higginbotham

23 Apr 2021

Under the most negative ‘business as usual’ scenario, climate change will cost Asia more than a quarter (26.5%) of GDP by 2050. That’s the highest regional toll after the Middle East and Africa (27.6%).

Emerging Asia will bear the brunt of climate change impacts. Due to a combination of geography and lack of adaptive capacity such as climate mitigation infrastructure, markets like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines rank on the low e­nd of the Index, while economies such as Japan, Australia, Hong Kong, Korea and Singapore score relatively well.

However, the research demonstrates conclusively that there are no winners in a world of rising temperatures. In a most severe scenario Japan would lose 12% of GDP by mid-century, and Singapore 46.4% – roughly the same proportion as its less prosperous Southeast Asian neighbours.

Read more:

What can I say?

To put these numbers into perspective, back in the 1950s Manhattan scientists discovered a means of building a manned starship using 1950s technology (search the link for “momentum limited”). The starship could have reached a top speed of 3.3% of the speed of light – just over a human lifetime to reach the nearest star. The estimated cost of one of these starships was 10% of the USA’s annual GDP – around $2.3 trillion in today’s dollars.

With $300 trillion, We could build 130 of these starships and start colonising our corner of the galaxy.

Don’t forget folks, renewable energy is still cheaper than coal. Do I need a /sarc tag?

5 23 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 6, 2023 2:06 pm

It is all, nothing but an expensive delusion, floated by delusional idiots, and it will kill civilization, not save it.

Remember, if you cannot accurately identify a problem, then don’t expect to be able to solve it.

Reply to  cuddywhiffer
July 6, 2023 2:26 pm

The cost of identifying the problem of climate change is the inevitable discovery that there is no problem of climate change. Consequently all the CAGW alarmists will be out of a job.

Reply to  Nevada_Geo
July 7, 2023 6:21 am

The best redundancy programme in the world.

Reply to  cuddywhiffer
July 6, 2023 5:08 pm

They know what “problem” they are “solving”, it’s just not what they are telling the people that they are going to coerce into paying for it. They are very actively trying to “solve” the problem of Western civilization, by destroying the energy infrastructure and food production capability of the most productive people to ever live on Earth, and they are going to get us to pay for our own destruction.

David Wojick
Reply to  cuddywhiffer
July 6, 2023 5:14 pm

I see no threat to civilization because very little of this nonsense will happen.

Reply to  David Wojick
July 6, 2023 7:12 pm

Could that e compared to early in the rise of National Socialism. That is, it wasn’t very obvious until it was possibly impossible to stop peaceably.

another ian
Reply to  AndyHce
July 7, 2023 1:52 am

Hemingway –

““How Did You Go Bankrupt?” “Two Ways. Gradually and Then Suddenly.” ”
Same truth applies over different “currencies”

Reply to  David Wojick
July 6, 2023 10:51 pm

It was nonsense 20 years ago – now it’s insanity. 10s of TRILLIONS of $ “to avoid society-destroying global warming.” ???? From just a few degrees of warming over a century? They are absolutely crazy or bald-faced con-artists.

Tom Halla
July 6, 2023 2:07 pm

Just consider their cost estimates are always low.

Ron Long
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 6, 2023 3:08 pm

That’s right, Tom. That’s why I’m investing in Green Lunatic Futures.

Reply to  Ron Long
July 6, 2023 3:46 pm

That sounds like a very profitable investment vehicle.

Reply to  pillageidiot
July 6, 2023 4:31 pm

might just get some of your taxes back via subsidy hand-outs. 🙂

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 6, 2023 4:48 pm

Although the cost estimate is too low, the first consideration should always be the benefit.

The estimated benefit(s) are is too high (or outright lies): tons of green jobs; you will die if you don’t do it; never mind it is all based on lies … it will make the air healthier if we get rid of dirty fossil fuels; etc.

People that base their actions on cost first, while rationalizing the benefit later have made an emotional decision, and likely have high credit card balances.

David Wojick
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 6, 2023 5:16 pm

That impossible number is way low. I get $175 trillion US just for the batteries to backup wind and solar replacing existing US fossil fueled power generation. See my little study here:

Reply to  David Wojick
July 6, 2023 10:54 pm

And that would be $175 trillion EVERY DECADE or so because they don’t last, unlike a nuclear plant that might reach almost a century.

Bill Toland
Reply to  David Wojick
July 7, 2023 1:50 am

The estimated cost is much too low. The cost of achieving net zero in New Zealand alone has been independently costed at 5 trillion dollars. Extrapolating that cost to the entire world gives a cost figure of 8 quadrillion dollars.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 7, 2023 1:59 am

8 quadrillion dollars equates to a million dollars for every person in the world. Somehow, I don’t think that this will happen.

David Wojick
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 7, 2023 2:44 am

Yes it cannot happen. The question is how will it not?

Reply to  Bill Toland
July 7, 2023 3:27 am

“a million dollars for every person in the world.”

not a problem … just need to devalue all currency’s (like 1920s Germany) so everyone be comes multi millionaires

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 7, 2023 4:50 am

it won’t happen but some people will continue to push to make it happen – “to save the planet”

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 7, 2023 4:48 am

Yuh, like the “Big Dig” in Boston- a major highway/bridge reconstruction- that was suppossed to cost just over a billion dollars- ended up costing 14 billion.

Rich Davis
July 6, 2023 2:08 pm

At the risk of being Captain Obvious, the cost of doing nothing about a non-problem is…NOTHING

Reply to  Rich Davis
July 6, 2023 3:15 pm

Thanks, Rich (aka Capt. Obvious), that made me smile……and prompted this reply.


Reply to  Rich Davis
July 6, 2023 3:52 pm

Renewable energy is a solution that doesn’t work for a problem that doesn’t exist.

Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2023 7:09 pm

Isn’t it amazing how profitable, to the ruling class, a non-existent problem can be?!

Remember Y2K? Was that a non-existent problem or was that a real one that did need billions thrown at it?

Reply to  SteveG
July 6, 2023 7:18 pm

It was a very real problem that needed some attention. It was also a clearly defined problem of about one dimension.

Rich Davis
Reply to  SteveG
July 7, 2023 1:51 am

Y2K and AGW are in my mind about on a par. Both vastly over-hyped and leveraged by scam artists to make billions on unnecessary changes.

No, scratch that. At least Y2K was a minor problem that probably had a few serious concerns that needed to be addressed. And generally after the changes were applied, there were no negative consequences beyond a depleted bank account.

With NetZero we’re trying to avoid beneficial changes by dismantling our entire civilization.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2023 8:43 pm

Yes, but the fuel savings are immense!


Rich Davis
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
July 7, 2023 2:13 am

Indeed. Think of the fuel savings from 7.5 billion dead and almost all the rest returning to 1600s lifestyles! Only a few thousand elite with their serfs. Say 100,000 serfs each for 5,000 global elite. We could probably get by with just 10,000 private jets.

Chris Hanley
July 6, 2023 2:24 pm

Imagine how much richer we would all be now if only Newcomen or Watt or whoever had not invented the steam engine.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Chris Hanley
July 6, 2023 4:09 pm

And if after inventing the steam engine became the Governor of California.

July 6, 2023 2:55 pm

Come off it, we could save society by getting rid of the UN, WEF and everyone else propagandising the climate…etc

Defund BBC, ABC (Australia) and any other government broadcaster..

That would SAVE a lot of money. !

July 6, 2023 2:56 pm

That´s a lot of zeros they throw around with … should we be nice and remind them that covid-19 “stays” on banknotes and coins for up to 28 days … creating a new “plandemic” is much scarier than CC.

July 6, 2023 3:02 pm

“The Swiss Re estimate of $23 trillion per year;”

The climate agenda is costing the world way more than that. !

Mike McMillan
Reply to  bnice2000
July 6, 2023 5:38 pm

Swiss Re isn’t exactly a disinterested observer here. They sell insurance (to insurance companies) and the scareder we be the more insurance we buy.

July 6, 2023 3:05 pm

Just to be clear, the actual amount of money needed to stop global warming is $0, not $300 trillion. Minor detail.

Reply to  Aetiuz
July 6, 2023 3:11 pm

Lets say 1(0) then we have an constant time algorithm (;)

Reply to  MB1978
July 6, 2023 3:12 pm

UpS (0)1…!!

July 6, 2023 3:50 pm

Where do these nut jobs get their stuff from? Not even the IPCC is claiming that global warming is going to end civilization.
At least they didn’t repeat the claim that all life on earth is going to end this time.

Regardless, that $300 trillion is just the cost for converting Australia.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
July 7, 2023 2:12 am

Heh. Loved the bit where they talk about ‘many countries’ pledged to net zero at $300 AU trillion. Oh no they bloody didn’t, they deluded themselves into thinking it’d only be a few billion at most. When the true cost and impact sinks in with the population at large, most politicians will be extremely unpopular.

July 6, 2023 3:50 pm

estimates in a new report this week it could cost $US196 trillion ($295 trillion) in investments to zero out the world’s carbon emissions by 2050,

Does the precautionary principle work both ways. Can you imagine the circumstances where climate models are actually wrong and “global warming” is entirely natural. Wouldn’t it be wise to spend money on adaption after the event than wasting money on something that is not going to alter the weather through reducing CO2.

And is it possible that the current weather dependent energy extractors consume more carbon than they reduce due to their short operating life and intensive energy requirement. It should be obvious that a spend of USD196tr involves a lot of carbon being burnt in China.

Of course the obvious outcome is that China will not be prepared to hold USD196tr in US debt to supply the real stuff required for the transition. The transition relies entirely on China being willing to accept US debt paper in return for wind turbines, solar panels and transmission lines.

Gary Pearse
July 6, 2023 4:06 pm

“What price tag would you put on preserving a functioning human civilisation? Would $300 trillion just about cover it?”

So, are we talking what we have now after 3 generations of destruction of economies, agriculture, education K-Asterisked PhD, end of free speech, no meat, jail time for withholding your 6 year old from tranny tyranny… A shortcut to ending all this nightmare and reversing it will be expensive as it is. Another $300T to dig us in deeper ain’t gonna happen.

July 6, 2023 4:19 pm

None of these estimates assume supply chain/scheduling issues and out of control inflation. You suppress investment in traditional FF projects today the impacts are felt many years from now, try extracting and transporting and manufacturing and installing all of this without FF to drive it…

ethical voter
July 6, 2023 4:25 pm

Warmunists seem to think there is no limit to other peoples money. Put them in the nut house and throw away the key. Much cheaper.

J Boles
July 6, 2023 4:28 pm

Give us all of the money, we gonna SAVE the World!!! GIVE! GIVE! GIVE! GIVE! GIVE! GIVE!

David Wojick
July 6, 2023 5:13 pm

That impossible number is way low. I get $175 trillion US just for the batteries to backup wind and solar replacing existing US fossil fueled power generation.

The only interesting question is how will this impossibility manifest itself? It looks like nothing much happening might be it, since nothing much is happening. Global spending of a trillion a year on wind and solar is nothing much compared to what these crazy people want. We can live with that for a while.

Peta of Newark
July 6, 2023 5:20 pm

Total madness – has the money (or thoughts of it) driven them so crazy or are they simply short of Oxygen.

Here’s a plan:

  • Set off a mining operation in Australia to dig and pulverise Basalt rock (or shale)
  • There’s plenty of it there, no need for expensive Chinese imports.
  • Optionally treat it (soften it up) with some cheap and nasty mineral acid, either Sulphuric or Nitric.
  • Windmills could make Nitric (Nitrous) easily enough
  • At a rate of 10Tonnes per acre, spread it over Australia
  • Optionally, dam the Murray Darling Basin and let it fill with water.

What the powdered rock will do is get some greenery growing and the new inland sea will speed up how fast that greenery becomes a rainforest.
It will as long as nobody gets their knickers twisted about ‘invasive species’

That should be do-able for about £20 per tonne of rock so for all of Australia I get a figure of £375 Billion (GB Pounds)

Once those plants get going, (you see large positive effects inside 3 or 4 years) they’ll be pulling down 9ppm of CO2 for each and every year that they’re left undisturbed.

Maybe repeat the rock-dust application at half rate after 5 years

It will transform the weather/climate of the Southern hemisphere – esp ENSO will fizzle out & stop.
Plus, the Indian Monsoon will ‘level itself out’. It will turn into more general and modest monthly (Maritime) rain pattern with less of the hideous and barely predictable deluge that it currently is.
Global Average Air temps will fall but, insanely for climate scientist everywhere whose heads will explode, Earth’s energy content will rise.
The plants and subsequently buried organic material will put some brakes on ‘global’ sea level rise
(Work it out but I guesstimate a water retention of 1 Billion acre-feet – before the content of the new lake is included also before all the (new) clouds hanging over the new forest)
Nutrient seepage/leakage (ordinary/natural soil erosion) will see the Barrier Reef extend as far as New Zealand

So simple
So cheap
So effective
So long lasting
So self sustaining

Is that even half of what Brandon is blowing on ‘reducing inflation’ and similar to what he’s spending/spent just to destroy, in every sense, The Ukraine

Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 6, 2023 7:20 pm

that’s one of your best —LOL!! Really good..ROTFL! — – Love the extension to the GBR.

I use volcanic rock dust on gardens..Its just excellent stuff. That plus liquid humus.

Peta of Newark
July 6, 2023 6:04 pm

Here’s a sweet little story – and exposition of just some of the shyte inherent inside every explanation of the GreenHouseGasEffect
It does in fact blow the thing completely out of the water

(It’s a 60second video I ‘borrowed’ from Wunderground. I’d normally link to there but they change these things constantly and it would disappear in no time)

It’s talking about ‘Airglow’ – as seen recently from Colorado
My Dropbox – a 60 second MP4

Now, tell me how you or anyone can reconcile what they say (and we all see in that video) with the GHGE assertion that ‘The atmosphere is transparent to solar radiation

Those who are not suffering climate-induced hypoxia or sugar-induced dementia will realise that what you see there is also how CO₂ ‘works’

Basically, ‘airglow’ is Fluorescence –
i.e. Short wavelength (high temperature) energy is captured by ‘some substance’ and then re-emitted at much longer (colder) wavelengths

And that is what CO₂ does.
Its just that CO₂ is absorbing at a very cold wavelength already (15microns or -79°C ) so when it re-emits, to say the remission is ‘frigid’ has got to be Understatement of the Millennium
Probably way below the temp of Liquid Nitrogen and somehow, I just don’t see folks flooding their houses/homes with that stuff then expecting to be toasty & warm

Climate Science says that flooding Earth with the radiant bounty coming off LN₂ will cause the oceans to boil.

They are soooo insane that you begin to doubt your own sanity – how can anybody become that deranged?

While cheerful little chappies, as we see, routinely debunk the entire thing and don’t even know.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 6, 2023 11:20 pm

Are you saying that the photons absorbed and re-emitted by CO2 have negative energy and bring down the temperature? Because that’s what you are saying by sticking to the idea that the 15micron wavelength corresponds to a temp of -79°C and so can’t do anything to the atmospheric temp.

If you had a black body with a peak emission at 15microns it would have a temp of -79°C but that’s not what happens when our atmosphere plays with the heat coming off the surface. That 15 mi photon will excite at CO2 molecule and then get reemited in probably some other direction than originally, and by the time it’s made its way out to space, it’s shared some of its energy thermally with a few other molecules – nothing major since deserts at night don’t seem to hold anything but it’s there. And yes this effect has nothing to do with a real greenhouse effect that blocks convection. In fact the build up of CO2 actually helps the Earth cool down at the poles. CO2 radiating out energy that it receives thermally from the rest of the atmosphere bumping into it, helps the poles cool down even more than from a lack of sunshine, especially Antarctica.

July 6, 2023 6:14 pm

These guys are full of it.

Reply to  Bob
July 6, 2023 11:24 pm

They are full of it and still have the audacity to ask for $300T more, and try to get you to think of it as a bargain. Like a thief robbing you at emotional guilt-ridden gunpoint, trying to convince you it’s a bargain, with promised rewards for you in the future, good karma coming your way.

John Reistroffer
July 6, 2023 6:26 pm

I assume that the $300 trillion is to be used to replace the energy and transportation heating, cooling, cooking etc.

I have often wondered if our “central planners” have considered the cost to replace or re-invent the more than 6000 products beside energy that are made or produced from oil and gas, that we we touch or use every minute of every day.

July 6, 2023 6:58 pm

These people are nuts! We cannot let them run things, it would be much worse than any “global warming” or “climate change” could ever be. They have already wasted many billions of taxpayer money, if not even trillions, with absolutely no change to our climate (thank God).

In fact as most intelligent people agree, several degrees of warming, if it is indeed happening, would be completely or almost completely beneficial.

July 6, 2023 7:10 pm

Most, if not all of the cost is due to climate policies, not climate.

July 6, 2023 7:11 pm

“Seasonally” adjusted? See what I did here..ha!

July 6, 2023 7:21 pm

OK, build a duplicate earth on the other side of the sun -same orbit as earth – and make the CO2 1000 ppm and see what happens. A trill here and a trill there and pretty soon you are talking about real money.

Richard Page
Reply to  antigtiff
July 7, 2023 2:22 am

No, just no. Given the track record of those morons they’d get the speed, orbit and/or the orbital plane wrong – it’ll either smack right into us or go careening round the solar system, laying waste to other planets like a monumental game of pool. No thanks – I’d even think twice about giving them anything more dangerous than plastic cutlery or safety scissors.

July 6, 2023 8:35 pm

Under the most negative ‘business as usual’ scenario, climate change will cost Asia more than a quarter (26.5%) of GDP by 2050. That’s the highest regional toll after the Middle East and Africa (27.6%).

What is Swiss Re on?

Even the BBC have stated the IPCC’s admission that the “business as usual” scenario (RCP8.5/SSP8.5) is bullshit or “exceedingly unlikely” as stated by Hausfather.

Can Swiss Re be sued for false advertising?

Where are the fact-checkers when you need them?

(Rhetorical, no need to answer)

Reply to  Redge
July 7, 2023 12:53 am

What is Swiss Re on?” A quest to increase your premiums……for no demonstrable reason

Has the cost of insuring or reinsuring lives increased since 2020/21……just asking.

David S
July 6, 2023 8:40 pm

It sounds like the crooks who hope to run the world are hoping to extract that much from us. The solution is Trump 2024. The crooks know it and that’s why they are so desperate to keep him out of office.

ethical voter
Reply to  David S
July 6, 2023 10:42 pm

Trump is no saviour. He is just another party shill, albeit, a hard to control one.

Ancient Wrench
July 6, 2023 10:46 pm

Under the most negative ‘business as usual’ scenario” means they are using the fever dream of RCP8.5, which is the 1% worst-case scenario, not business as usual. It has already been thoroughly discredited.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Ancient Wrench
July 7, 2023 11:13 am

And using UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models that run way too hot. They effectively ignored this in AR6. I wonder what they will do in AR7 about the lack of increasing extreme weather (glossed-over it in AR6) and the increasingly inaccurate UN IPCC CliSciFi models, including the tropospheric hot spots that don’t exist.

July 7, 2023 2:30 am

$300 Trillion is the transfer of wealth demanded. Transferring $300 trillion from the hands of the working class and poor into the fat wallets of the multinationals and techno elites.

July 7, 2023 3:19 am

Under the most negative ‘business as usual’ scenario, climate change will cost Asia more than a quarter (26.5%) of GDP by 2050. 
In a most severe scenario Japan would lose 12% of GDP by mid-century, 
2050 is quite a long way away. Do these people provide any interim figures so we can check their predictions against reality a bit sooner than 2050? For example, do they have a figure for 2030 or 2035? Surely this loss of GDP will be gradual, not all of a sudden in 2050.

July 7, 2023 8:15 am

Ummmm . . . do we (the people forking out the money) get a rebate if, at the end of spending some $AU 300 trillion, we have nothing to show for it?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights