I'm guessing you prefer governments like the Liberal one in Canada, which our climate commissioner says has the worst record in the G7 since the Paris agreement was reached in 2015.
European Gas Prices Hit Record High As Germany Blocks Nord Stream 2
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
You don't think building renewable energy is 'infrastructure'?No, that reference was not the cost of investing in "green energy." That number was the cost for infrastructure improvements.
Surely, you don't believe that spending over $4 trillion a year to transition from fossil fuels is less than the cited $400 million a year that your link says is spent on "climate disasters"?
By the way, that link you provided only had numbers for "developed countries." As the Indian government would be happy to explain to you, the cost burden would be much greater in the developing world.
Climate finance isn't charity, says Indian minister at COP26
India's environment minister says climate finance is not charity and rich countries should deliver on an unfulfilled promise to raise $100 billion a year to help poor nations adaptabcnews.go.com
And you agree that their number of $390 billion in climate disaster costs for developing countries right now is accurate but don't think that's a problem?
You also don't support spending $1 now to avoid $4 dollars in costs later?
You sound rather confused.
Even the very conservative World Bank understands that investing now will save us money big time.
An estimate from the World Bank finds that climate inaction could reduce global GDP by at least 5 percent annually while the price of the necessary action is set to 1 percent of global GDP annually.
Finding 1% of GDP should be pretty easy considering we spend 6.5% of global GDP subsidizing fossil fuels.
We already use 6.5% of global GDP subsidizing fossil fuels so a 1 % investment should be very possible.
I'm always surprised how bad right wingers are with numbers and finances.
What can you not comprehend?? With Canada's emissions being way above the target, that is why this Climate Commissioner is calling for more action. Something I fully support. But do You support what that British Conservative Minister stated in regards to moving away from cars in the future?I'm guessing you prefer governments like the Liberal one in Canada, which our climate commissioner says has the worst record in the G7 since the Paris agreement was reached in 2015.
Does that mean moving the 40-50% emission reduction target by 2030...................
But do You support what that British Conservative Minister stated in regards
to moving away from cars in the future?
or something like that to the future? I will be willing to support that if
Norway and the U.K are going to cut oil production in North Sea by more
than 30% as well. But I guess they most likely will squeeze every drop of
oil they can get their hands on from the North Sea to the Arctic sea.
Bjorn Lomborg has a PhD in "Political Science". But more on him here:To repeat: I'm not the one championing the rapid elimination of fossil fuels. The advocates of this plan to overturn the world economy are the ones who have a duty to present the cost/benefit analysis.
But if you want to rely on me to provide the numbers, so be it. Here's the analysis by Bjorn Lomborg, the economist who has crunched the numbers using the UN's own projections.
Biden’s climate ‘fix’ is fantastically expensive and perfectly useless
Across the world, politicians are going out of their way to promise fantastically expensive climate policies. President Biden has promised to spend $500 billion each year on climate — about 13 perc…nypost.com
It appears it would cost the U.S. and the E.U. alone more than $5 trillion a year to implement their plans to eliminate fossil fuels.
And I still think it's fascinating that thousands of virtue signallers went to their climate gabfest in Glasgow with no economic analysis of the impact of the net-zero target.
A closer examination of the fantastical numbers in Bjorn Lomborg’s new book - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment
Bob Ward reviews Bjorn Lomborg’s new book, False Alarm, finding the misuse of outdated, concocted and misinterpreted numbers on the costs of climate action and concluding that the book’s central claim that the ‘optimal’ level of global warming by 2100 would be 3.75˚C was completely out-of-date...
www.lse.ac.uk
So say no more about this politically motivated individual whose numbers are exaggerated. However, if nothing is done to address Climate Change, then it is going to cost the USA itself close to $2 trillion annually. Let's go by the real facts:
If they move towards achieving their targets, then oil will no longer be in demand to the extent it is today.
Meaning that exploration of oil in the North Sea will not be worth the costs!!
Do you people think that the only use of fossil oil is for burning?
Future generations will shake their heads in disbelief that we burned oil.
Petrochemical feedstock accounts for 12% of global oil demand, a share that is expected to increase driven by increasing demand for plastics, fertilisers and other products.
Future generations will shake their heads in disbelief that we burned oil.
Petrochemical feedstock accounts for 12% of global oil demand, a share that is expected to increase driven by increasing demand for plastics, fertilisers and other products.
Only a small fraction of crude oil produced is needed for
petrochemical production. I guess may be like 5%. I do
think the world has to come up with some plan to begin
conservation of the remaining oil reserve simply because
it is a non-renewable resource.
So assuming your 12% is correct. (a lot of petrochemicals are derived from Natural gas , not necessarily oil)
What do you think will happen to feedstock prices if the Lonnie's are successful to any significant extent in shutting down fossil fuel production
How Plastic is made from Natural Gas (psu.edu)
What will that do to the price of an Iphone?
More importantly what will that do to food prices?
Agriculture is very reliant on energy
Future generations will shake their heads in disbelief that we starved millions of people to death because of a 0.01% change in atmospheric composition
A quick recap:
- Frankfooter has falsely attributed a statement in one blog post to the post that I cited, which was using entirely different numbers (more than 10 times larger, in fact).
- Frankfooter falsely described the cost estimate for infrastructure improvements for "adaptation" as the cost of "green energy."
I sure hope the mods aren't asked to investigate this thread.
Yes, they should check out your posts.A quick recap:
- Frankfooter has falsely attributed a statement in one blog post to the post that I cited, which was using entirely different numbers (more than 10 times larger, in fact).
- Frankfooter falsely described the cost estimate for infrastructure improvements for "adaptation" as the cost of "green energy."
I sure hope the mods aren't asked to investigate this thread.
1 - the numbers weren't from a 'blog' they were from a source that you cited. You just tried to cherry pick one set of numbers while pretending the rest of what they wrote doesn't count.
2 - Adaptation from fossil fuels to renewables is the point of this discussion and the source you cited.
While they are looking they can check post #45 where you made intentional false statements of my views as you continue here.
And going from 280 to 400 ppm represents a 0.01% change in atmospheric composition
It is all in the presentation
Like I said
Future generations will shake their heads in disbelief that we starved millions of people to death because of a 0.01% change in atmospheric composition
So again which climate disasters are keeping you awake at night?
Forest fires ?- Burn acreage is less than 100 years ago- Media reporting has increased likely 500%
Seal Level rise? : Antarctica holds 90% of the frozen water on the planet and it remains frozen 99% of the time and just had the coldest winter season since the 1950s
VS the hundreds of millions of people who live in abject poverty because they do not have access to reliable inexpensive energy
How many will join them if the fossil fuels are shut down?
Last edited:
FACT: Once again, Frankfooter hasn't read -- and/or didn't understand -- the post he cited.
The article is very explicit in its description of "infrastructure" projects.
To answer Franky's question: No, I don't think you can produce new energy to replace fossil fuels by investing in resilient roads and transport links, coastal zone projects, hurricane-proof houses, efficient irrigation, resilient micro-grids and supply chains and logistics.
Apparently, Frankfooter thinks hurricane-proof houses and resilient roads, etc., are a source of new energy.
Or is this another example where he's now going to claim he never referred to the "infrastructure" projects in the blog post as "renewable energy."
Last edited:
More weather porn.
It cites all kinds of dubious numbers about the cost of hurricanes, etc., but no tangible numbers on how much those costs would be reduced. The conclusion that the net result would be a cumulative savings is completely baseless.
And I have a strong suspicion the "business-as-usual" model cited in that report is the notorious RCP.85 scenario that even climate change champions like Zeke Hausfather say is total bullshit.
Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading
Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome — more-realistic baselines make for better policy.
www.nature.com
If you haven't followed this one, the so-called "business as usual" model is based on a projected five-fold increase in coal production by the end of the century - a forecast that no one believes is even remotely credible.
In fact, some have questioned whether there is a large enough supply of coal reserves left on the planet to fulfil that scenario.
Last edited:
FACT: Once again, Frankfooter hasn't read -- and/or didn't understand -- the post he cited.
The article is very explicit in its description of "infrastructure" projects.
To answer Franky's question: No, I don't think you can produce new energy to replace fossil fuels by investing in resilient roads and transport links, coastal zone projects, hurricane-proof houses, efficient irrigation, resilient micro-grids and supply chains and logistics.
Apparently, Frankfooter thinks hurricane-proof houses and resilient roads, etc., are a source of new energy.
Or is this another example where he's now going to try to claim he never referred to the "infrastructure" projects in the blog post as "renewable energy."
too funny
all of which will require huge amounts of energy/ materials to create
the loonies have not thought any of this through
they just know Greta tells them "oil is bad" , so it must be controlled/ stoped
You posted from a site and claimed that it showed that it was going to be too expensive to bother doing anything about climate change.
I posted from your same site a report that says for every dollar spent you save 4 dollars.
You are back pedalling because once again you're caught out bullshitting.
Why are you so against saving money and not screwing over your kids, should you have any?
Your site said it would cost 1% of GDP to keep warming down, this site says it will cost 11-14% of GDP if we do nothing.
Climate Change Could Cut World Economy by $23 Trillion in 2050, Insurance Giant Warns
Poor nations would be particularly hard hit, but few would escape, Swiss Re said. The findings could influence how the industry prices insurance and invests its mammoth portfolios.
