Who’s Up For Spending $131 Trillion By 2050 On Climate Crisis (scam)

Mind you, this is just for clean energy investment, not for all the other things the Cult of Climastrology wants to do

Climate Change: $131 Trillion Clean Energy Investments Needed to Avert Catastrophe, Report Says

Planned investment in clean energy must increase by 30% to a total of $131 trillion by 2050 to avert catastrophic climate change, with the need to massively scale up hydrogen production particularly acute, according to a study published on Tuesday.

In its annual flagship report, the International Renewable Energy Agency underscored the scale and pace of change needed to cap the rise in average global temperatures at 1.5 degrees Celsius, in line with the 2015 Paris climate accord.

“The gap between where we are and where we should be is not decreasing but widening,” said Francesco La Camera, director-general of the Abu Dhabi-based organization, which has more than 160 member states. “We need a drastic acceleration of energy transitions to make a meaningful turnaround.”

OK. Then spend your own money on it. Why is it necessary to spend Other People’s money for your beliefs? I don’t ask gun grabbers to pay for my ammunition.

The agency’s “1.5C pathway” set out in the report found that fossil fuel consumption would have to fall by more than 75% by 2050, with oil and coal shrinking more quickly.

Use of natural gas would have to peak in 2025, although it would be the dominant fossil fuel by mid-century.

Renewable power capacity will have to expand more than ten-fold by mid-century, accompanied by a 30-fold increase in the electrification of transport, the report found.

I’m assuming that “clean energy” includes electric vehicles, non-gas stoves, fridges, and more. But, does this include retrofitting homes, all the climahysteric building requirements, compliance with production of food and goods, and more? Because that’s a lot of damned money. Where do they think it’s coming from, the Climate Fairy?

Warmists are fine with taking all their business and personal profits, right?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Who’s Up For Spending $131 Trillion By 2050 On Climate Crisis (scam)”

  1. MrToad says:

    I assume India & Communist China will be exempt because a) they’re still a “developing country” and/or b) they just wont participate in these silly and expensive games without an exemption.

    That we’re replacing our “first world tech workers” with “tech workers” from “developing countries” is beyond me but hey, who am I to question those H1B loving Utah republican Senators. They think we’re the crazy ones…

  2. Est1950 says:

    Sign me UP!!

    I want my guaranteed income check each month from the government. I surmise about 6k per month ought to about do me.

    I can just sit and do nothing. Also all the farmers and ranchers need to quit tilling the soil too so that they quit kicking up that methane and Co2.

    then we can just go to an all robot country and learn Chinese.

    Sign me up. I am all in on this stupidity. Hell this generation is so fuking lame that they are incapable of doing much beside complaining, posting on social media and the grand finale is a woman has a zero.zero, zero Grade point Average in college and she is ranked in the MIDDLE OF HER CLASS because it would be racist to do otherwise.

    I hope she is majoring in BRAIN SURGERY.

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    nuCon fun with BIG numbers!

    $131 trillion over the next 30 years! That’s some 6 times current US GDP!!!! OMG!!! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!

    There was no mention that the $131 was for the US only, was there?

    The entire global GDP is projected to be $250 TRILLION in 2050 alone. What do you think the total global GDP will be when you add 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2037, 2038, 2039, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048 and 2049 to 2050’s? Global GDP was about $90 TRILLION in 2020. A straight line between $90 TRILLION in 2020 to $250 TRILLION in 2050 gives us a midway average of $170 TRILLION. 30 years X $170 TRILLION = $5,100 TRILLION over the next 30 years.

    $131 TRILLION/ $5,100 TRILLION = 2.6% of total GDP. The nations of the world will spend more on bombs. That’s not as scary as 6 years of US GDP, is it?

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Rimjob’s not very good with numbers or economics but you already know that.

      And he’s not particularly smart.

      Bwaha! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Nice rebuttal, Smegma.

        So over the next 30 yrs, 2.6% of global GDP is proposed to combat global warming and nuCons run with their hair on fire! ZOMG – look at this big number!!

        Well done, Teach and Mr Dana, well done. LOL. On “GAB” no less. Keep spreading your disinformation.

        • Dana says:

          You take out 2.6% from a nation’s economy to simply waste it, and what do you have? You have a recession!

          Of course, given that your starting numbers were the bovine feces you scraped off the bottom of your shoe, no one can accept your 2.6% figure as accurate.

    • Dana says:

      Math are hard, I guess.

      Looking at the distinguished Mr Dowd’s numbers, he claimed that total global GDP was $90 trillion in 2020. This site places it at $83.845 trillion, and projects 2021 to be at $91.031 trillion. Other sites might place it differently, but not even the IMF has published its numbers yet. However, global GDP for 2019 was $87.552 trillion, and while we don’t have the final numbers on it yet, world GDP was forecast by the International Monetary Fund to contract by 4.4% due to government overreaction to COVID-19. 4.4% of $87.552 trillion is $3.852 trillion, or a guesstimate of $83.700 trillion, not too far from the given number of $83.845 trillion.

      Of course, for world GDP to grow to $250 trillion from Mr Dowd’s mythical $90 trillion will require some combination of production increases and inflation to the tune of 277.77%, or an average of 9.259% per year! Even excluding 2020, world GDP has not been increasing by anywhere close to that number.

      To expand to $250 trillion from the more accurate guesstimate of $83.845 trillion would require productivity and inflation to total 298.17%, or 9.939% per year.

      Those are the simple numbers, which do not take cumulative rates into account.

      Of course, there’s this gem from our esteemed host’s cited article:

      Renewable power capacity will have to expand more than ten-fold by mid-century, accompanied by a 30-fold increase in the electrification of transport, the report found.

      It also foresaw a dramatic increase in the production and use of “green hydrogen” – a zero-carbon fuel made by electrolysis, using power from wind and solar, that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen.

      By 2050, 30% of electricity use will be dedicated to producing green hydrogen and hydrogen and its derivatives, such as e-ammonia and e-methanol, the report said.

      To produce this, global electrolyser capacity will need to expand to almost 5,000 Gigawatts from 0.3 GW today.

      ROTFLMAO! yes, electrolysis splits water into hydrogen and oxygen, and, in theory, recombining hydrogen and oxygen by burning, which releases no carbon, produces as much electricity as was expended in the electrolysis process. However, no process created by man has ever been 100% efficient, so we will be using more electricity in the electrolysis process than we will get out of it.

      Brilliant, just f(ornicating) brilliant. Perhaps, just perhaps, the process can be made efficient enough to excess power transmission losses over distance to make automobile fuel cells worthwhile, but we don’t know that yet. And do you want service stations run by minimum wage workers filling up vehicles with pure hydrogen?

  4. Phil Taylor says:

    I am sorry to see the U.S is now in the scam club and will now start paying the U.N large amounts of money every year for them to fight climate change. The U.N. never tells you where it went and how paying this money prevents climate change.
    John Kerry (DEM Bagman), who was involved in the Iran Nuclear deal where it is alleged that many western politicians got kickbacks, is now overseeing Climate change. Again he is not a scientist. Why choose him?
    Is it because he has experience in kickbacks?
    Why is climate change not handled the same way as covid?
    Because the world knows that climate change is not a threat, and it believes covid is!

  5. Jl says:

    I realize this may be an outrageous request, but please show us proof that there’s a crisis in the making…….

Bad Behavior has blocked 9788 access attempts in the last 7 days.