UN Plan to Fight “Climate Change” To Cost $61 Trillion by 2050
Tue, January 09, 2024 | Author: Ron Gray | Volume 31 Issue 2 | Share: Gab | Facebook | Twitter
Unbelievably, the cost of avoiding a mere 2°C global temperature rise by 2050 will be $61 trillion. The effect of spending this $61 trillion is hundreds of millions of deaths by starvation.
That’s one of the conclusions drawn from Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels, produced by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)* The NIPCC is an international body of real climate scientists, not to be confused with the IPCC, an organization whose alarmist climate predictions have been used by the UN and national governments around the world to justify destructive economic and social policies such as the current UN policy under discussion here.
The economic effect of this disastrous UN policy would be to plunge the whole world—but especially the developing world—into permanent economic recession; and undoing all the progress made since 1905. It will sentence hundreds of millions of people to death by starvation, and billions more to crushing poverty. Taking into account the physical limits that prevent alternative energy sources from completely replacing fossil fuels, the UN policy rates an alarming cost-benefit ratio of 162:1—that is, the cost of the policies advocated by the UN, and now being implemented by Canada’s federal government, is 162 times more than any anticipated benefit!
The UN, basing its proposed policies on the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group II says CO2 emissions must be cut by between 40% and 70% from 2010 levels by 2050 in order to prevent ~2°C of warming (since pre-industrial times) that would otherwise occur by that year (according to their highly speculative computer models). Since economic growth is closely related to CO2 emissions, the opportunity cost of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions includes the loss of economic prosperity that otherwise would take place.
How much of your wealth, present and future, are you prepared to give up for 2°C? Would you accept a loss of 80% as outlined in the next two paragraphs? And what if all that sacrifice and expense fails to accomplish even that ~2%?
Original IPCC analysis...indicates that reducing GHGs to 70% below 2010 levels by 2050 would lower world GDP in 2050 by 21% from baseline forecasts. World GDP would be about $231 trillion instead of the $292 trillion now forecast by the World Bank, a loss of $61 trillion.
The IPCC has also overlooked the physical limits of wind and solar energy that prevent them from generating enough dispatchable energy (available on demand 24/7) to entirely replace fossil fuels, so energy consumption must fall in order for emissions to fall. If global population continues to grow, then per-capita energy consumption must decline even faster. One estimate that takes this factor into account finds reducing GHG emissions by 80% by 2050 would reduce GDP by 81%, plunging the world into permanent economic recession and undoing all the progress made since 1905 (Tverberg, 2012).
If we can’t produce the same energy using wind and solar then how much are you willing to turn off? 80% of your winter heating? How about eliminating air-conditioning in the summer? And, of course, personal travel by car and plane will need to be drastically reduced to achieve the UN’s goals.
The IPCC estimates the cost of unabated climate change to be between 0.2% and 2% of GDP in 2050 while the models it relies on produce an average estimate of 0.5%. That is the expected economic benefit of avoiding ~ 2°C of warming by 2050. Since the cost of reducing CO2 emissions by 70% is approximately 21% of projected GDP that year, the cost-benefit ratio is 42:1. In other words, reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions enough to perhaps avoid 2°C warming by 2050 would cost 42 times as much as the benefits! The estimate by Tverberg (2012), taking into account the physical limits that prevent alternative energy sources from completely replacing fossil fuels, produces an alarming cost-benefit ratio of 162:1!
Cost-benefit analysis can also be applied to greenhouse gas mitigation programs to produce like-to- like comparisons of their cost-effectiveness. The cap-and-trade bill considered by the U.S. Congress in 2009, for example, would have cost 7.4 times more than its benefits, even assuming that all of the IPCC’s assumptions and claims about climate science were correct. Other bills and programs already in effect have costs exceeding benefits by factors up to 7,000 (Monckton, 2016). In short, even accepting the IPCC’s flawed science and scenarios, there is no justification for adopting GHG emission mitigation programs.
Conclusion
Fossil fuels have benefited humanity by making possible the prosperity that has occurred since the first Industrial Revolution, which made possible investments in goods and services essential to protecting human health and prolonging human life. Fossil fuels also power the technologies that reduce the environmental impact of a growing human population, saving space for wildlife and producing a “greening” effect, by which earth’s green space has increased about 15% in the past decade.
The IPCC and national governments around the world claim the negative impacts of global warming on human health and security, occurring now or likely to occur in the future, more than offset the benefits that come from the use of fossil fuels. This claim lacks any scientific or economic basis. The benefits of fossil fuels are nowhere reported in the IPCC’s assessment reports. The analysis conducted here in the NIPCC report, for the first time, finds nearly all the impacts of fossil fuel use on human well-being are net positive (benefits minus costs), near zero (no net benefit or cost), or are simply unknown.
The alleged negative human health impacts due to air pollution are exaggerated by researchers who violate the Bradford Hill Criteria and rely too heavily on epidemiological studies finding weak relative risks. The alleged negative impacts on human security due to climate change depend on tenuous chains of causality that find little support in the peer-reviewed literature.
In conclusion, the IPCC and its national counterparts have not conducted proper cost-benefit analyses of fossil fuels, global warming, or regulations designed to force a transition away from fossil fuels. The global war on fossil fuels, which commenced in earnest in the 1980s and reached a fever pitch in the second decade of the twenty-first century, was never founded on sound science or economics.
The authors of and contributors to Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels urge the world’s policymakers to acknowledge this truth and end that war. Our guest on CHP Talks this past week was Tom Harris, Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition-Canada. He is very knowledgeable on this topic. You can view our interview here.
CHP Canada urges you to require accountable data from our government, fully reviewed, before we are mired further in Carbon Taxes. Canadians deserve better than half-baked virtue-signalling plans without proper cost benefit analysis before they shiver through a Canadian winter forced to huddle in their homes wishing for heat.
It’s time to stop falling for every fear tactic used to make Canadians compliant with government programs. CHP Canada will deliver better. Join today!
Share to Gab
Other Commentary by Ron Gray:
- Le conservatisme économique passe à côté de l’essentiel
- Economic Conservatism Misses the Point
- Six dangers auxquels le Canada est confronté
- Six Dangers Canada Faces
- Vérification des faits concernant le « Pacte pour l’avenir » du gouvernement mondial de l’ONU : la promesse de 5 milliards de dollars du Canada est-elle un « parachute doré »?
- Fact-checking the UN’s global government ‘Pact for the Future’: Is Canada’s $5 billion pledge buying a ‘golden parachute’?
- Les mensonges qui entravent la plupart des églises au Canada
- The Lies That Shackle Most Churches in Canada
- Le cabinet pour enfants de Trudeau
- Trudeau’s Kiddie Kabinet
- L’attaque imminente contre les droits de propriété privée de tous les Canadiens
- The Looming Attack on All Canadians’ Private Property Rights