UN: Failure To Stop “Climate Change” Will Be Costly, So Spend Lots Of Money Now
Interestingly, countries didn’t spend hundreds of billions into the trillions to stop Hotcoldwetdry before the 17 year pause
(NY Times) Nations have so dragged their feet in battling climate change that the situation has grown critical and the risk of severe economic disruption is rising, according to a draft United Nations report. Another 15 years of failure to limit carbon emissions could make the problem virtually impossible to solve with current technologies, experts found.
It’s a bit of a pet peeve, but I hate when they refer to CO2 as “carbon”. It’s unscientific. But, then, “climate change” is not about science.
A delay would most likely force future generations to develop the ability to suck greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and store them underground to preserve the livability of the planet, the report found. But it is not clear whether such technologies will ever exist at the necessary scale, and even if they do, the approach would probably be wildly expensive compared with taking steps now to slow emissions.
The report said that governments of the world were still spending far more money to subsidize fossil fuels than to accelerate the shift to cleaner energy, thus encouraging continued investment in projects like coal-burning power plants that pose a long-term climate risk.
And then all these people writing the report jumped in their fossil fueled vehicles to head off to the pub after a hard day of spreading awareness.
This all comes for a “leaked” draft IPCC report, and what they obviously want is massive government spending on all sorts of “green” programs and government control of economies. Otherwise, they claim massive doom that might possibly kinda maybe sorta destroy the biosphere, despite CO2 levels being higher than today for a good portion of the Earth’s history.
Nations have agreed to try to limit the warming of the planet to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels. Even though it will be exceedingly difficult to meet, this target would still mean vast ecological and economic damage, experts have found. But the hope is that these would come on slowly enough to be somewhat manageable; having no target would be to risk catastrophic disruption, the thinking goes.
Since 1850 there rise has been a modest 1.4F, less than one would expect during a typical Holocene warm period. There has been a statistically insignificant rise during the 17 year pause, and no warming, and some data suggests a dip, during the 21st Century. Meanwhile, a good chunk of the “green” companies provided with taxpayer money from the Stimulus have gone bust. Most have provided few jobs. And while Team Obama and their minions are gung ho to try these economy killing projects, not so in Europe
The European Union, which for years has sought to lead the world in addressing climate change, is tempering its ambitions and considering turning mandatory targets for renewable energy into just goals.
The union’s policy-making body is also unlikely to restrict exploration for shale gas using the disputed technique known as hydraulic fracturing.
Europe has been turning away from all the “green” projects for years now, after going full bore post-Kyoto. As Spain learned, for every 1 “green” job created (mostly artificially), 3 real jobs were lost. One day these “clean” alternatives will be worthwhile. Not now. But Warmists, including those in the United Nations, want to keep the money train going, along with the prestige and power, so they will push hyperventilation inducing scare scenarios.
The average sea rise over the last 7,000-8,000 years is 6-8 inches per century. As I’ve explained before, we use
Really excited. Here’s Grist’s John Upton There are carrot and stick approaches to tackling pollution. China is reaching for the
The big question is, will he forgo either traveling in a huge fossil fueled motorcade or taking fossil fueled Marine