To climb out of the coronavirus depression, we shouldn’t start by letting bad green deals make us poorer

[Anonymous]

After the ravages of the coronavirus pandemic, the world will be spending trillions of dollars to get us back on track. Increasingly, campaigners and influential policymakers demand this spending be tied to climate goals. IMF chairwoman Kristalina Georgieva urges "We must do everything in our power to make it a green recovery," and U.S. Democrats, the European Commission and many other countries are pushing "Green New Deals." These could cost us tens of trillions of dollars, and, unfortunately, will be one of the worst ways to help us recover.



According to the IMF, the losses due to the coronavirus pandemic could easily top US$20 trillion ($27 trillion) this and next year. That is $20 trillion of food, health care and opportunities for people around the world that we can no longer afford.



The Paris Climate Agreement is wasteful, as it will cost US$1-2 trillion a year but reduce climate damages by just one-tenth of its cost. It will not fix climate, but reduce temperatures at century's end by an almost immeasurable 0.2 C. Moreover, studies show it will increase poverty and quadruple European power prices.



The biggest studies of the 2050 European Green Deal show enormous costs of 1-2 trillion euros ($1.5 trillion-$3 trillion) per year by 2050 just for Europe.



This cost exceeds what governments across the EU today spend on health, education and environment, yet it will only reduce global climate damages by less than one-tenth of its cost.



Moreover, green spending works slowly and creates almost no jobs in the short run, when jobs are most needed. It also doesn't help those who are affected the most. It generates green jobs in construction and manufacturing, whereas most job losses due to coronavirus occurred in services.



Finally, subsidized jobs from green deals will have to be financed by higher taxes, leading to fewer jobs elsewhere. As the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research concludes in a new study, overall employment effects from environmental policies "are likely to be small, especially in the long run."



Sometimes it is suggested that going green will actually make us richer. This not only fails the giggle test, it is also contradicted by the climate economic literature: energy is the main driver of economic growth, so making it less effective, less reliable and more expensive has real costs.



Campaigners often misquote one OECD report to suggest climate policies can increase growth. The report actually shows that climate policies drag down growth, whereas smart non-climate policies like investments in infrastructure and education, along with a more flexible labour market, increase growth. Maybe we should pick the growth-enhancing policies first?



But today we need to spend most of our scarce resources on the urgent needs: investments in health care to tackle the huge backlog and increase resilience to future epidemics; getting children back on track and in school; and helping the billions worldwide who have less food, less income and more insecurity.



As we begin our global climb out of the coronavirus depression, we shouldn't start by letting bad green deals make us poorer, help climate little and ignore the many other urgent needs of the world.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-as-we-begin-our-global-climb-out-of-the-coronavirus-depression-we-shouldnt-start-by-letting-bad-green-deals-make-us-poorer">https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn ... -us-poorer">https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-as-we-begin-our-global-climb-out-of-the-coronavirus-depression-we-shouldnt-start-by-letting-bad-green-deals-make-us-poorer



The Copenhagen Consensus is a treasure trove of factual, sensible information about cost/benefit analysis of UN lead climate policies. I am hearing politicians say we need greater investment in useless wind and solar and this will only deepen the depression caused by lock downs.

[Anonymous]

You would think prog billionaires and corporations would suspend their begging for subsidies for useless and expensive wind and solar pet projects in this great depression, but instead the greedy bastards have doubled down on it.

[Anonymous]

After the ravages of the coronavirus pandemic, the world will be spending trillions of dollars to get us back on track. Increasingly, campaigners and influential policymakers demand this spending be tied to climate goals. IMF chairwoman Kristalina Georgieva urges "We must do everything in our power to make it a green recovery," and U.S. Democrats, the European Commission and many other countries are pushing "Green New Deals." These could cost us tens of trillions of dollars, and, unfortunately, will be one of the worst ways to help us recover.



According to the IMF, the losses due to the coronavirus pandemic could easily top US$20 trillion ($27 trillion) this and next year. That is $20 trillion of food, health care and opportunities for people around the world that we can no longer afford.



The Paris Climate Agreement is wasteful, as it will cost US$1-2 trillion a year but reduce climate damages by just one-tenth of its cost. It will not fix climate, but reduce temperatures at century's end by an almost immeasurable 0.2 C. Moreover, studies show it will increase poverty and quadruple European power prices.



The biggest studies of the 2050 European Green Deal show enormous costs of 1-2 trillion euros ($1.5 trillion-$3 trillion) per year by 2050 just for Europe.



This cost exceeds what governments across the EU today spend on health, education and environment, yet it will only reduce global climate damages by less than one-tenth of its cost.



Moreover, green spending works slowly and creates almost no jobs in the short run, when jobs are most needed. It also doesn't help those who are affected the most. It generates green jobs in construction and manufacturing, whereas most job losses due to coronavirus occurred in services.



Finally, subsidized jobs from green deals will have to be financed by higher taxes, leading to fewer jobs elsewhere. As the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research concludes in a new study, overall employment effects from environmental policies "are likely to be small, especially in the long run."



Sometimes it is suggested that going green will actually make us richer. This not only fails the giggle test, it is also contradicted by the climate economic literature: energy is the main driver of economic growth, so making it less effective, less reliable and more expensive has real costs.



Campaigners often misquote one OECD report to suggest climate policies can increase growth. The report actually shows that climate policies drag down growth, whereas smart non-climate policies like investments in infrastructure and education, along with a more flexible labour market, increase growth. Maybe we should pick the growth-enhancing policies first?



But today we need to spend most of our scarce resources on the urgent needs: investments in health care to tackle the huge backlog and increase resilience to future epidemics; getting children back on track and in school; and helping the billions worldwide who have less food, less income and more insecurity.



As we begin our global climb out of the coronavirus depression, we shouldn't start by letting bad green deals make us poorer, help climate little and ignore the many other urgent needs of the world.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-as-we-begin-our-global-climb-out-of-the-coronavirus-depression-we-shouldnt-start-by-letting-bad-green-deals-make-us-poorer">https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn ... -us-poorer">https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-as-we-begin-our-global-climb-out-of-the-coronavirus-depression-we-shouldnt-start-by-letting-bad-green-deals-make-us-poorer



The Copenhagen Consensus is a treasure trove of factual, sensible information about cost/benefit analysis of UN lead climate policies. I am hearing politicians say we need greater investment in useless wind and solar and this will only deepen the depression caused by lock downs.

Oh my goodness, we'll never get out the lock down depression.

[Anonymous]

After the ravages of the coronavirus pandemic, the world will be spending trillions of dollars to get us back on track. Increasingly, campaigners and influential policymakers demand this spending be tied to climate goals. IMF chairwoman Kristalina Georgieva urges "We must do everything in our power to make it a green recovery," and U.S. Democrats, the European Commission and many other countries are pushing "Green New Deals." These could cost us tens of trillions of dollars, and, unfortunately, will be one of the worst ways to help us recover.



According to the IMF, the losses due to the coronavirus pandemic could easily top US$20 trillion ($27 trillion) this and next year. That is $20 trillion of food, health care and opportunities for people around the world that we can no longer afford.



The Paris Climate Agreement is wasteful, as it will cost US$1-2 trillion a year but reduce climate damages by just one-tenth of its cost. It will not fix climate, but reduce temperatures at century's end by an almost immeasurable 0.2 C. Moreover, studies show it will increase poverty and quadruple European power prices.



The biggest studies of the 2050 European Green Deal show enormous costs of 1-2 trillion euros ($1.5 trillion-$3 trillion) per year by 2050 just for Europe.



This cost exceeds what governments across the EU today spend on health, education and environment, yet it will only reduce global climate damages by less than one-tenth of its cost.



Moreover, green spending works slowly and creates almost no jobs in the short run, when jobs are most needed. It also doesn't help those who are affected the most. It generates green jobs in construction and manufacturing, whereas most job losses due to coronavirus occurred in services.



Finally, subsidized jobs from green deals will have to be financed by higher taxes, leading to fewer jobs elsewhere. As the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research concludes in a new study, overall employment effects from environmental policies "are likely to be small, especially in the long run."



Sometimes it is suggested that going green will actually make us richer. This not only fails the giggle test, it is also contradicted by the climate economic literature: energy is the main driver of economic growth, so making it less effective, less reliable and more expensive has real costs.



Campaigners often misquote one OECD report to suggest climate policies can increase growth. The report actually shows that climate policies drag down growth, whereas smart non-climate policies like investments in infrastructure and education, along with a more flexible labour market, increase growth. Maybe we should pick the growth-enhancing policies first?



But today we need to spend most of our scarce resources on the urgent needs: investments in health care to tackle the huge backlog and increase resilience to future epidemics; getting children back on track and in school; and helping the billions worldwide who have less food, less income and more insecurity.



As we begin our global climb out of the coronavirus depression, we shouldn't start by letting bad green deals make us poorer, help climate little and ignore the many other urgent needs of the world.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-as-we-begin-our-global-climb-out-of-the-coronavirus-depression-we-shouldnt-start-by-letting-bad-green-deals-make-us-poorer">https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn ... -us-poorer">https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-as-we-begin-our-global-climb-out-of-the-coronavirus-depression-we-shouldnt-start-by-letting-bad-green-deals-make-us-poorer



The Copenhagen Consensus is a treasure trove of factual, sensible information about cost/benefit analysis of UN lead climate policies. I am hearing politicians say we need greater investment in useless wind and solar and this will only deepen the depression caused by lock downs.

The response to Bjorn: DENIER!!

[Anonymous]

After the ravages of the coronavirus pandemic, the world will be spending trillions of dollars to get us back on track. Increasingly, campaigners and influential policymakers demand this spending be tied to climate goals. IMF chairwoman Kristalina Georgieva urges "We must do everything in our power to make it a green recovery," and U.S. Democrats, the European Commission and many other countries are pushing "Green New Deals." These could cost us tens of trillions of dollars, and, unfortunately, will be one of the worst ways to help us recover.



According to the IMF, the losses due to the coronavirus pandemic could easily top US$20 trillion ($27 trillion) this and next year. That is $20 trillion of food, health care and opportunities for people around the world that we can no longer afford.



The Paris Climate Agreement is wasteful, as it will cost US$1-2 trillion a year but reduce climate damages by just one-tenth of its cost. It will not fix climate, but reduce temperatures at century's end by an almost immeasurable 0.2 C. Moreover, studies show it will increase poverty and quadruple European power prices.



The biggest studies of the 2050 European Green Deal show enormous costs of 1-2 trillion euros ($1.5 trillion-$3 trillion) per year by 2050 just for Europe.



This cost exceeds what governments across the EU today spend on health, education and environment, yet it will only reduce global climate damages by less than one-tenth of its cost.



Moreover, green spending works slowly and creates almost no jobs in the short run, when jobs are most needed. It also doesn't help those who are affected the most. It generates green jobs in construction and manufacturing, whereas most job losses due to coronavirus occurred in services.



Finally, subsidized jobs from green deals will have to be financed by higher taxes, leading to fewer jobs elsewhere. As the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research concludes in a new study, overall employment effects from environmental policies "are likely to be small, especially in the long run."



Sometimes it is suggested that going green will actually make us richer. This not only fails the giggle test, it is also contradicted by the climate economic literature: energy is the main driver of economic growth, so making it less effective, less reliable and more expensive has real costs.



Campaigners often misquote one OECD report to suggest climate policies can increase growth. The report actually shows that climate policies drag down growth, whereas smart non-climate policies like investments in infrastructure and education, along with a more flexible labour market, increase growth. Maybe we should pick the growth-enhancing policies first?



But today we need to spend most of our scarce resources on the urgent needs: investments in health care to tackle the huge backlog and increase resilience to future epidemics; getting children back on track and in school; and helping the billions worldwide who have less food, less income and more insecurity.



As we begin our global climb out of the coronavirus depression, we shouldn't start by letting bad green deals make us poorer, help climate little and ignore the many other urgent needs of the world.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-as-we-begin-our-global-climb-out-of-the-coronavirus-depression-we-shouldnt-start-by-letting-bad-green-deals-make-us-poorer">https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn ... -us-poorer">https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-as-we-begin-our-global-climb-out-of-the-coronavirus-depression-we-shouldnt-start-by-letting-bad-green-deals-make-us-poorer



The Copenhagen Consensus is a treasure trove of factual, sensible information about cost/benefit analysis of UN lead climate policies. I am hearing politicians say we need greater investment in useless wind and solar and this will only deepen the depression caused by lock downs.

The response to Bjorn: DENIER!!

Maybe racist too.

[Anonymous]

After the ravages of the coronavirus pandemic, the world will be spending trillions of dollars to get us back on track. Increasingly, campaigners and influential policymakers demand this spending be tied to climate goals. IMF chairwoman Kristalina Georgieva urges "We must do everything in our power to make it a green recovery," and U.S. Democrats, the European Commission and many other countries are pushing "Green New Deals." These could cost us tens of trillions of dollars, and, unfortunately, will be one of the worst ways to help us recover.



According to the IMF, the losses due to the coronavirus pandemic could easily top US$20 trillion ($27 trillion) this and next year. That is $20 trillion of food, health care and opportunities for people around the world that we can no longer afford.



The Paris Climate Agreement is wasteful, as it will cost US$1-2 trillion a year but reduce climate damages by just one-tenth of its cost. It will not fix climate, but reduce temperatures at century's end by an almost immeasurable 0.2 C. Moreover, studies show it will increase poverty and quadruple European power prices.



The biggest studies of the 2050 European Green Deal show enormous costs of 1-2 trillion euros ($1.5 trillion-$3 trillion) per year by 2050 just for Europe.



This cost exceeds what governments across the EU today spend on health, education and environment, yet it will only reduce global climate damages by less than one-tenth of its cost.



Moreover, green spending works slowly and creates almost no jobs in the short run, when jobs are most needed. It also doesn't help those who are affected the most. It generates green jobs in construction and manufacturing, whereas most job losses due to coronavirus occurred in services.



Finally, subsidized jobs from green deals will have to be financed by higher taxes, leading to fewer jobs elsewhere. As the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research concludes in a new study, overall employment effects from environmental policies "are likely to be small, especially in the long run."



Sometimes it is suggested that going green will actually make us richer. This not only fails the giggle test, it is also contradicted by the climate economic literature: energy is the main driver of economic growth, so making it less effective, less reliable and more expensive has real costs.



Campaigners often misquote one OECD report to suggest climate policies can increase growth. The report actually shows that climate policies drag down growth, whereas smart non-climate policies like investments in infrastructure and education, along with a more flexible labour market, increase growth. Maybe we should pick the growth-enhancing policies first?



But today we need to spend most of our scarce resources on the urgent needs: investments in health care to tackle the huge backlog and increase resilience to future epidemics; getting children back on track and in school; and helping the billions worldwide who have less food, less income and more insecurity.



As we begin our global climb out of the coronavirus depression, we shouldn't start by letting bad green deals make us poorer, help climate little and ignore the many other urgent needs of the world.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-as-we-begin-our-global-climb-out-of-the-coronavirus-depression-we-shouldnt-start-by-letting-bad-green-deals-make-us-poorer">https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn ... -us-poorer">https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-as-we-begin-our-global-climb-out-of-the-coronavirus-depression-we-shouldnt-start-by-letting-bad-green-deals-make-us-poorer



The Copenhagen Consensus is a treasure trove of factual, sensible information about cost/benefit analysis of UN lead climate policies. I am hearing politicians say we need greater investment in useless wind and solar and this will only deepen the depression caused by lock downs.

The response to Bjorn: DENIER!!

They don't want to counter his reality check, so he's labelled.

[Thiel]

All the wind and solar advocates are asking for more taxpayer money when what Canadians need post pandemic is cheap, abundant energy.

[Blazor]

Something else people aint thinking about, the cost of all these statues being removed. In Richmond alone, for just the ones on the avenue being removed, cost $1,800,000. Then think about all the ones being removed all over. Then think about all these schools and such that are changing names, that will be in the millions too, cause of signage, sports teams, stationary like letterheads and envelopes, websites, its a LOT that has to change, not just a name.

[Anonymous]

Some of these prog mayors need their heads examined.



https://www.rebelnews.com/edmonton_is_destroying_river_valley_to_build_30_million_solar_farm">https://www.rebelnews.com/edmonton_is_d ... solar_farm">https://www.rebelnews.com/edmonton_is_destroying_river_valley_to_build_30_million_solar_farm

A new solar farm in Edmonton that will be built in the River Valley, owned by the city-owned power and water utility EPCOR.



The EL Smith solar farm, consisting of 45,000 solar panels placed on 54 acres of land, was approved in a 7-6 vote by the city council 2 weeks ago. It's meant to power the EPCOR-owned EL Smith Water treatment facility — but even that's not entirely true.



The project allegedly "advances Edmonton's Energy Transition Strategy goal of producing 10 per cent of electricity locally without any requirement for new funding"... except ratepayers did fund it.



And how much much power will these things produce? Enough to power the water treatment facility forever? Not quite. The panels will only provide about 20 per cent of the water treatment plant's power.

[cc]

Some of these prog mayors need their heads examined.

I had another couple of items of their anatomy in mind .. but for removal

The panels will only provide about 20 per cent of the water treatment plant's power.

Aw, but TAM .. Token Acts Matter

[Anonymous]

The mayor of Calgary likes wasting our money too.

[cc]

Do you guys still have that smiley Ismali mayor?

[Anonymous]

Do you guys still have that smiley Ismali mayor?

Mayor Nenshi, yes.

[Anonymous]

Do you guys still have that smiley Ismali mayor?

Mayor Nenshi, yes.

That guy is an arrogant fruit.

[Anonymous]

Some of these prog mayors need their heads examined.



https://www.rebelnews.com/edmonton_is_destroying_river_valley_to_build_30_million_solar_farm">https://www.rebelnews.com/edmonton_is_d ... solar_farm">https://www.rebelnews.com/edmonton_is_destroying_river_valley_to_build_30_million_solar_farm

A new solar farm in Edmonton that will be built in the River Valley, owned by the city-owned power and water utility EPCOR.



The EL Smith solar farm, consisting of 45,000 solar panels placed on 54 acres of land, was approved in a 7-6 vote by the city council 2 weeks ago. It's meant to power the EPCOR-owned EL Smith Water treatment facility — but even that's not entirely true.



The project allegedly "advances Edmonton's Energy Transition Strategy goal of producing 10 per cent of electricity locally without any requirement for new funding"... except ratepayers did fund it.



And how much much power will these things produce? Enough to power the water treatment facility forever? Not quite. The panels will only provide about 20 per cent of the water treatment plant's power.

Expensive, foolish symbolism.