The latest out of the UN IPCC is that they need $2.4T a year for 20 years in order to keep the temperature from rising by more than 1.5° C.
The IPCC’s modelled pathways show that $2.4 trillion must be invested in new clean energy every year from 2015 through 2035, which, Bloomberg notes, is an almost sevenfold increase from the $333.5 billion invested in renewable energy in 2017. That is an aggregate investment of $48 trillion. The interest bill alone (at say 5%pa) would be $200 billion per month – more than the whole world currently spends on childhood education and environmental protection combined.
The report (C2.7) says that “the literature on total mitigation costs of 1.5°C mitigation pathways is limited and was not assessed in this report”. Others have calculated massive additional expenditure on energy efficiency, electricity transmission and storage, CCS and other carbon dioxide removal (CDR). But even these estimates do not attempt to put a price upon the “unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” called for by the IPCC.
The "literature is limited" is pretty funny, with the astronomical sums demanded. So how does the science hold up on this? Judy Curry has a long and detailed analysis, but
this is the key bit:
IMO, even with erroneous attribution of extreme weather/climate events and projections using climate models that are running too hot and not fit for purpose of projecting 21st century climate change, the IPCC still has not made a strong case for this massive investment to prevent 1.5C warming.
The "Science is Settled" even when it's based on computer models "running too hot and not fit for purpose". But turn over your money and freedom right now or we'll call you a climate denier or something. Yawn.
Oh, I imagine that inducing a 90+% dieoff* could be done for a fraction of $48 trillion. Reminds me of a possibly apocryphal story from Kosovo, wherein a Serb told an American journalist friend, "I heard you spent $12 billion to blow up Serbia. All you had to do was ask -- we'd have done it ourselves for half that."
ReplyDelete*I once did a quick and dirty bac-of-the envelope analysis: the "fully renewable by 2050 with no reduction in per capita energy availability" claim holds up...for a population of around half a billion (perhaps not coincidentally what the Georgia Guidestones call for, if memory serves).
Feel free to check my math and reasoning; I will never deliberately mislead you, but I can be as wrong as anyone.
ReplyDeleteThe climate is changing, the climate is changing!!!'
'So?? '
'So Hands UP!!! Gimme all your money. '
Tax. tax. tax, You work. Government takes with a gun at your back. NO MORE
“Climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth report. Speaking in 2010:
https://tinyurl.com/yadesqhf
"Give us your money and we'll behave better"; or whatever Killary said.
ReplyDeleteGod is laughing that they think they can control the weather.