Update: Post publishing this article new relevant data was released. It looks like much of the data used to support these spending projects is fraudulent, “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.” The question now becomes, do we want to spend a fortune based upon GIGO models and forecasts?
Before reading this article, watch this video to put things in perspective. Remember, there are two aspects to cost and benefits. The real question is, are we getting our monies worth for what we are spending or the climate alarmists hope to spend.
According to the SPPI’s original paper “Climate Money,” the US Government alone spent $79 billion between 1989 and 2009 fighting “climate change,” with the spending accelerating. The “Climate Policy Initiative” states that in 2013 global spending on fighting climate change reached $331 billion, which was $28 billion below 2012 levels (No, those aren’t Typos). What benefits did the world get from all that spending? Not much…if anything. CO2 increased from 355 to 395 PPM and seems to be slightly accelerating. Temperatures simply laughed off the spending, and according to ground measurements just recently hit an all-time high. Wind and solar make up less than 0.5% of the world’s energy production. It was as if we never spent a dime.
In reality, I could argue that spending money on fighting climate change results in global warming. The correlation between dollars spent fighting climate change and temperatures is much greater than between CO2 and temperatures. Anyway, how much do we need to spend to “save the Earth?” Would you believe $7 Trillion, Trillion with a capital T, per year, and then boost spending in the future!!!
“The International Energy Agency estimated in a recent report that the world needs to spend $359 trillion between now and 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate change. “
Spend $359 Trillion for what? Would you believe at most, 0.9 Degree C of relative cooling? According to “Climate Earth Tracker,” that is the expected benefit by the end of the century. Here is a video that details the numbers.
“But here’s the biggest problem: These miniscule benefits do not come free; quite the contrary.
The cost of the Paris climate pact is likely to run to 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year, based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise. In other words, we will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature, by the end of the century, by a grand total of three tenths of one degree.”
So now we have some numbers to play with; $7 Trillion/yr, $359 Trillion by 2050, $100 Trillion by 2100, all for 0.9 Degree C of relative cooling. BTW, 0.9 Degree C would fall within 2 standard deviations of the thermometer’s error.
The most widely used instrument in US airports and other locations for temperature measurement is the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS). The user’s guide for ASOS states the specifications for accuracy of the temperature measuring instruments in the form of Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and Maximum (MAX) Error. For an ambient temperature range of -58ºF to +122 ºF the RMSE is 0.9 ºF and the Maximum Error is plus or minus 1.8 ºF.
Relevant Statistics and Figures:
US Population: 325 Million
World Population: 7.5 Billion
US GDP: $18 Trillion
World GDP: $78 Trillion
Mile of Road: $500,000
FDA Drug Approval: $1,000,000,000
Hospital: $800,000,000 or $1,500,000/bed.
High School: $250,000,000
Teacher’s Salary and Benefits: $100,000/yr
Family M.D: $250,000/yr
Manhattan Project: $26,000,000,000
DARPA Annual Budget: $3,000,000,000/yr (The Internet, GPS, Stealth)
Apollo Moon Mission: $200,000,000,000 (Rocket engines, Semiconductor)
Acre of Rain Forest: $10,000
Endangered Species Breeding Farm: $10,000,000
$7,000,000,000,000/year is the equivalent of:
Giving every American $22,000/yr
Giving every person on the face of the Earth $933/yr
7,000 new drugs/yr
8,750 new major hospitals, or 4.7 million new hospital beds
14,000,000 miles of new road/yr
28,000,000 Family MDs salaries
70,000,000 Teacher’s salaries
35 Apollo Missions
Preserve 700,000,000 acres of Rain Forest
70,000 endangered species breeding farms
$359 Trillion is the equivalent of:
4.6 years of the entire World’s gross production
20 years of the entire gross production of America
359,000 new drugs
448,000 new hospitals
To make matters worse, much of the money US taxpayers spend on fighting climate change goes to the UN, where they have little if any say into where it goes. One thing is for certain, it isn’t going to fund many if any projects in the US.
I could go on and on playing with these numbers, but I think my message is clear. We have real problems in the world, with real solutions available to solve them. Unfortunately, many problems won’t be solved because money is being misallocated to fighting a war on climate change that simply can’t be won. Even if we do everything the Paris Accord wants, the benefits will fall within 2 standard deviations of a thermometer’s error. In other words, we would spend a fortune measured in multiples of global GDP for absolutely nothing. The absurdity of that statement is beyond comprehension to anyone truly wanting to make a positive difference, and make the world a better place.
The bottom line is, the most effective, efficient, affordable and achievable way to improve the lives of countless people living in poverty is to get them a reliable, accessible and inexpensive energy source. If the people voting to waste other people’s money on fighting climate change had to live a single day without the cheap energy they are accustomed to, they would immediately change their attitudes. Fighting climate change is an agenda of the elites detached from reality.
Post publishing Princeton Physicist Dr. Happer gave an interview to the NYTs that pretty much captures the spirit of this article.
German Power Consumers Now Saddled By Staggering 35 Billion Euros In Taxes, Feed-In Tariffs