60 replies to this topic

[Shady]

U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion

Two years ago, U.N. researchers were claiming that it would cost “as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade” to go green. Now, a new U.N. report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.

So let's do the math: That works out to a grand total of $76 trillion, over 40 years -- or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year). It’s all part of a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution” called for in the annual report. Except that the U.N. will apparently control this next industrial revolution.

Link

Make no mistake. This is the true hidden agenda behind so-called climate change. A massive re-distrubution of wealth from developed countries to developing countires. As has already been stated. Green is the new Red. Hold on to your wallets.

[eyeball]

Okay, so the US GDP in 40 years will total around 586 trillion.

76 trillion of that is about 13% and of course that'll be spread out globally.

76 trillion seems pretty cheap actually. That's like the cost of general maintenance or something. You weren't just planning on just leaving a worn-out un-maintained piece of shit for future generations to scrape by on were you?

[TimG]

Okay, so the US GDP in 40 years will total around 586 trillion.

Where do you get 586 trillion from? With 3% growth I get $45 trillion. Global GDP would be $400 trillion (that is likely on the high side).

76 trillion seems pretty cheap actually. That's like the cost of general maintenance or something. You weren't just planning on just leaving a worn-out un-maintained piece of shit for future generations to scrape by on were you?

You forget that there is no such thing as a viable renewable power source so all of this money has to confiscated from enterprises that actually generate wealth.

[Oleg Bach]

How stupid - to make 76 trillion dollars you have to destroy a lot of natural green environment. By the time they spend the money they will be right back to where they started from. To make money you must have industry and human activity - 76 trillion will generate so much filth and waste that the only thing that will be green is enamel paint.

[eyeball]

Where do you get 586 trillion from? With 3% growth I get $45 trillion. Global GDP would be $400 trillion (that is likely on the high side).

40 years times 14.66 trillion US GDP a year is 586 trillion.

Shady didn't mention the rest of the planet's GDP by the way so the 76 trillion he's having chest-pains and diarrhea over looks even less like peanuts.

Don't the threads title, the linked news-story and post in general smack of exactly the same sort of data fudging and hysteria climate scientists and environmentalists are accused of?

You forget that there is no such thing as a viable renewable power source so all of this money has to confiscated from enterprises that actually generate wealth.

You forget or don't realize that much of the natural capital of the planet that underwrites our economy's ability to generate wealth has already been confiscated by our enterprises to date.

You forget that we don't have four or five other Earth's in the bank.

[Bonam]

$76 trillion is not peanuts. Regardless of the % of global GDP that $76 trillion represents over the next 40 years, for that price and timeframe we could colonize Mars instead.

[dre]

$76 trillion is not peanuts. Regardless of the % of global GDP that $76 trillion represents over the next 40 years, for that price and timeframe we could colonize Mars instead.

It completely depends on what "going green" means. If that means a complete revamp of the energy sector then it doesnt seem all that unreasonable. Its definately the biggest and most expensive project we have ever attempted, and it will probably take most of this century to finish.

[eyeball]

$76 trillion is not peanuts. Regardless of the % of global GDP that $76 trillion represents over the next 40 years, for that price and timeframe we could colonize Mars instead.

The % like I said seems reasonable when thinking in terms of operating and maintenance costs. I think of Earth as being like a boat that I rely for my livelihood (there's that fishery/canary-in-a-coal-mine thing again). In my experience as a fisherman putting 12 - 13% of the gross back into the boat sounds like a pretty damned good deal actually.

You'd have to put at least that much back just to keep making a living never mind finance the new one you plan to buy down the road.

Presumably you plan on just driving this planet till it breaks while living high on the hog and then jumping ship for Mars when the bills come due. Good luck with that.

[Bonam]

It completely depends on what "going green" means. If that means a complete revamp of the energy sector then it doesnt seem all that unreasonable. Its definately the biggest and most expensive project we have ever attempted, and it will probably take most of this century to finish.

A "revamp" of the energy sector is something I see more as an opportunity for economic growth than as a pure expense, especially if it is allowed to happen organically via the private sector.

[cybercoma]

Too much money. Bah. Let some other generation deal with it. We're not going to be around to deal with the fallout.

[Shady]

Too much money. Bah. Let some other generation deal with it. We're not going to be around to deal with the fallout.

Yeah, the fallout from what? A half a degree warmer in 100 years?

Of course, that's if one is dumb enough to think we'll still be burning fossil fuels and using the combustion engine 50 to 100 years from now. Like somehow technology will stop in its tracks.

Personally, I'm fairly certain transportation, and energy production will look a lot different in the year 2100. Which will completely solve any issues with CO2. Without the cost of $76 trillion dollars.

[WIP]

At some point the question has to be asked "how much is your life worth?" And in this case, that would include the lives of future generations. How much are we paying for the cost of doing nothing? You won't find that one at Foxnews! There are billions of dollars lost in the floods, droughts and tornadoes that have had a real dampening effect on the U.S. economy, and the economic costs of doing nothing and burning more and more oil are going to keep on rising.

It's worth pointing out that this is a 'pay me now, or pay me later' situation. Just as you end up paying a lot more if you decide to delay replacing the timing belt in your car's engine if it breaks, we have a similar situation with climate change - since the costs of mitigating the damaging effects would have been a lot less if the global economies started reducing CO2 emissions 10 or 20 years ago, instead of waiting till now...a time when it is becoming obvious that positive feedback cycles are already in effect, and a lot of change is already in the pipeline just waiting to hit us even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow!

[August1991]

Now, a new U.N. report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.

So let's do the math: That works out to a grand total of $76 trillion, over 40 years -- or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year).

That's a really stupid calculation and it explains why I generally flip through most general news reports that involve any science/math/finance/economics.

$5000 today is not the same as $5000 in 40 years - and not merely because of possible inflation. Which would you rather have? $5000 now or $5000 inflation-protected dollars in 40 years? (To start, you may be dead in 40 years.)

In short, you can't multiply $1.9 trillion by 40 and get $76 trillion. That's adding oranges, bananas and mangoes - money from today with money you'll receive next year, and in 40 years - all together.

Okay, so the US GDP in 40 years will total around 586 trillion.

76 trillion of that is about 13% and of course that'll be spread out globally.

76 trillion seems pretty cheap actually. That's like the cost of general maintenance or something. You weren't just planning on just leaving a worn-out un-maintained piece of shit for future generations to scrape by on were you?

Eyeball, your numbers are all wrong but I like your reasoning. Future GDP will be higher and in the future, we will be able to afford to pay higher costs to protect the environment.

To put this in perspective, if a poor Indian family in Tamil Nadu has a house with a collapsing roof, should they use the family savings to fix the roof or should they send their son off to college to learn about computers? $4000 today is alot of money but in a few years, if the son does well, it will seem like a small sum.

Of course, if the roof collapses before the son goes to college - or the son turns out to be an idiot, then the decision may be critical.

-----

Here's my own prediction: politicians will eventually clue into the idea that they can tax the use of the environment rather than taxing income, wealth or other various practices/habits.

Both income tax and environmental taxes raise revenue, and no one likes taxes. But there's a big difference between the two.

The easiest way to avoid a tax is to stop doing the taxed activity. For this reason alone, income taxes are bad and environmental taxes are good. Income taxes make people lazy. Environmental taxes make the world cleaner.

At some point, a smart politician will understand this and be able to explain it credibly. This will revolutionize our tax system.

Edited by August1991, 07 July 2011 - 02:48 PM.

[TimG]

Just as you end up paying a lot more if you decide to delay replacing the timing belt in your car's engine if it breaks

It makes a lot of sense to wait if you know your income is going to 10 times what it is today when that belt goes.

[Bonam]

Here's my own prediction: politicians will eventually clue into the idea that they can tax the use of the environment rather than taxing income, wealth or other various practices/habits.

They already do. You get taxed for owning land. You pay the government a fee if you want to extract oil, lumber, metals, or other materials from crown lands. And of course you also pay tax on the profits generated by those activities. And in many jurisdictions we already tax emissions, as well.