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
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.
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.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=370583 time=1594327517 user_id=114
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
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.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=370583 time=1594327517 user_id=114
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
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!!
Quote from: "Shen Li" post_id=370650 time=1594353443 user_id=56
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=370583 time=1594327517 user_id=114
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
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.
Quote from: "Shen Li" post_id=370650 time=1594353443 user_id=56
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=370583 time=1594327517 user_id=114
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
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.
All the wind and solar advocates are asking for more taxpayer money when what Canadians need post pandemic is cheap, abundant energy.
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.
Some of these prog mayors need their heads examined.
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.
Quote from: Herman post_id=388833 time=1604114205 user_id=1689
Some of these prog mayors need their heads examined.
I had another couple of items of their anatomy in mind .. but for removal
Quote
Aw, but TAM .. Token Acts Matter
The mayor of Calgary likes wasting our money too.
Do you guys still have that smiley Ismali mayor?
Quote from: cc post_id=388873 time=1604164375 user_id=88
Do you guys still have that smiley Ismali mayor?
Mayor Nenshi, yes.
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=388878 time=1604166792 user_id=3254
Quote from: cc post_id=388873 time=1604164375 user_id=88
Do you guys still have that smiley Ismali mayor?
Mayor Nenshi, yes.
That guy is an arrogant fruit.
Quote from: Herman post_id=388833 time=1604114205 user_id=1689
Some of these prog mayors need their heads examined.
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.
Brussels has decided that making their population poorer will reverse global termperatures. :crazy:
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Taxation will not escape the European Union's plans to curb planet-warming emissions, and levies should be revamped to reflect climate and environmental costs, the head of EU climate policy said on Monday.
Brussels is planning a far-reaching overhaul of policies including Europe's carbon market, farming subsidies and CO2 standards for cars as it seeks to slash EU emissions to 'net zero' - meaning that all emissions must be offset in full by absorption measures - by 2050.
As part of those plans, the European Commission will revise EU energy taxation rules by next summer.
However, changes to EU taxation rules need approval from all 27 member countries, making them difficult to pass.
Changes to fuel taxation in particular may face resistance from countries and companies concerned that higher carbon-based taxes will make their products more expensive, or hurt consumers - although advocates say revenues from carbon levies can be used to support vulnerable citizens and fund low-carbon projects.
https://www.reuters.com/article/climate-change-eu-tax/eu-eyes-tax-as-tool-in-climate-change-fight-idINL4N2I2328
It's a long-winded article. But, to sum up, the cost of wind is not dropping, it doesn't produce as much power as a coal, natural gas or nuclear power plant, and it doesn't produce enough jobs to replace the jobs lost in better energy sources.
Quote
Fossil fuels are of low entropy. They are, in the technical, thermodynamic sense, highly improbable, being dense stocks of energy, the improbability of which can be rendered in a multitude of changes to the world in accordance with human wishes, improbable changes that we call wealth. And if the low-carbon candidates to replace those fossil fuels do not have similarly favorable or superior physical properties, no amount of policy support will be able to compensate for the deficiency. Nature cannot be fooled. Reality matters.
But what is the reality of renewable energy? In one of his first actions as president, Mr. Biden has expressed the wish to "double" offshore wind in the U.S. by 2030, an ambiguous phrase that probably means he and his advisers wish to see twice the current development portfolio of offshore wind capacity to be operational within a decade, or 18,000 MW rather than the present 9,000 MW in an advanced stage of preparation. The attraction is easily explained. The U.S. already has a great deal of onshore wind power, 112,000 MW, subsidized through Production Tax Credits and mostly located on and around a line running from North Dakota to Texas, a broad belt characterized by strong winds, cheapish land, and low construction costs. Unfortunately, it is also distant from the main corridors of demand on the East and West coasts. Offshore wind along the coasts therefore seems like a tempting option for expansion, but is it wise?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/02/u-s-offshore-wind-prospects-overblown-promises-and-blown-up-costs/amp/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR13V7ASsd3pBrI11ujiQnPBrsdwVCETbdEmnnMCdQn9IlzgaayxJiKqjEI