Liberty News Forum
Political News Forum - Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. Not for wimps!
Political Opinion Page - Recent Posts - LNF Forums LNF in the Age of Empowerment! Algorithm free!
Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Entertainment - Sports Forum
Military - A1 News Page - Computers Tech - Financial News - Bunker - Presidential Tracking Poll
The House - Off the Wall News - Page 2 - Rasmussen Reports Polls - Chat Room
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HerePolitical Opinion Page - The Hot Seat › The UN’s plan to limit global warming could cost $122 trillion just for new energy in
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 Send TopicPrint
Normal Topic The UN’s plan to limit global warming could cost $122 trillion just for new energy in (Read 43 times)
Wallys Not Tired of Winning
Hardhat
Conservative Caucus
*****
Offline

Cunning... is but the
low mimic of wisdom ~Plato

Posts: 21,604
Location: Upstate New York
Joined: Feb 24th, 2008
Gender: Male
The UN’s plan to limit global warming could cost $122 trillion just for new energy in
Oct 9th, 2018 at 7:29pm
Print Post  
The United Nations’ call for governments and companies to shift trillions of dollars into “low-carbon energy” systems to limit future global warming is “not feasible,” according to an environmental economist.

A new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report projects between $1.6 trillion and $3.8 trillion in “energy system supply-side investments” is needed every year through 2050 to have any chance of keeping future global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/09/limiting-global-warming-cost/?utm_medium=push...

result for how much is a trillionwww.thecalculatorsite.com

" In the American system: one billion is 1,000,000,000 and a trillion is 1,000,000,000,000 so one trillion is one thousand times one billion. In the British system: one billion is 1,000,000,000,000 and one trillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 so one trillion is one million times one billion. "

So, which system is the UN using.  (since numbers this large are only theoretical)

The Leftists have no idea how we'll pay for this (other than confiscating the wealth of other people and handing it over to those they deem more deserving  Angry)
  

" The few will always act like the few.�

�Machiavelli

Back to top
WWWAIM  
IP Logged
 
Luther
LNF Speaker
*****
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 10,438
Joined: Dec 20th, 2016
Gender: Male
Re: The UN’s plan to limit global warming could cost $122 trillion just for new energy in
Reply #1 - Oct 10th, 2018 at 5:03am
Print Post  
Wallys Not Tired of Winning wrote on Oct 9th, 2018 at 7:29pm:
The United Nations’ call for governments and companies to shift trillions of dollars into “low-carbon energy” systems to limit future global warming is “not feasible,” according to an environmental economist.

A new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report projects between $1.6 trillion and $3.8 trillion in “energy system supply-side investments” is needed every year through 2050 to have any chance of keeping future global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/09/limiting-global-warming-cost/?utm_medium=push...

result for how much is a trillionwww.thecalculatorsite.com

" In the American system: one billion is 1,000,000,000 and a trillion is 1,000,000,000,000 so one trillion is one thousand times one billion. In the British system: one billion is 1,000,000,000,000 and one trillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 so one trillion is one million times one billion. "

So, which system is the UN using.  (since numbers this large are only theoretical)

The Leftists have no idea how we'll pay for this (other than confiscating the wealth of other people and handing it over to those they deem more deserving  Angry)



Remember Wally, Trump didn't have a problem with the Climate agreement that he backed out of it'self.... but rather looking for a better "deal"

Yep Wink
  

All throughout our American history, world history, "ordinary people can do extraordinary things"


un·known quan·ti·ty
noun
a person or thing whose nature, value, or significance cannot be determined or is not yet known.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Seawolf
LNF Speaker
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 24,578
Joined: Oct 31st, 2011
Gender: Male
Re: The UN’s plan to limit global warming could cost $122 trillion just for new energy in
Reply #2 - Oct 10th, 2018 at 6:37am
Print Post  
The report says unless global greenhouse gas emissions peak before 2020, the CO2 levels will be way above the goal set for 2030, which, it goes on, will make it "extremely unlikely that the goal of holding global warming to well below 2 degrees C can still be reached."

Not to worry. The UN claims that closing this gap will be easy enough, if nations set their collective minds to it.


But this is a fantasy. The list of what would need to be done by 2020 — a little over two years from now — includes: Boosting renewable energy's share to 30%. Pushing electric cars to 15% of new car sales, up from less than 1% today. Doubling mass transit use. Cutting air travel CO2 emissions by 20%. And coming up with $1 trillion for "climate action."

Oh, and coal-fired power plants would have to be phased out worldwide, starting now.

According to the report, "phasing out coal consumption … is an indispensable condition for achieving international climate change targets." That means putting a halt to any new coal plants while starting to phase out the ones currently in use.

Good luck with that. There are currently 273 gigawatts of coal capacity under construction around the world, and another 570 gigawatts in the pipeline, the UN says. That would represent a 42% increase in global energy production from coal. Does anyone really think developing countries who need coal as a cheap source of fuel to grow their economies will suddenly call it quits?

So, does this mean the planet is doomed? Hardly. As we have noted in this space many times, all those forecasts of global catastrophe are based on computer models that have been unreliable predictors of warming. And all of the horror stories assume the worst.

What the report does make clear, however, is that all the posturing by government leaders in Paris was just that. Posturing. None of these countries intended to take the drastic and economically catastrophic steps environmentalist claim are needed to prevent a climate change doomsday.  As such, Trump was right to stop pretending.

Whether you believe in climate change or not, the Paris climate accord amounted to nothing, or pretty close to it. Even the UN admits that now...

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-un-admits-that-the-paris-clima...
  


"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Charles Carroll, signer of the DOI
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
forgotten centrist
LNF Speaker
*****
Offline

bring back the middle
class!

Posts: 12,607
Joined: Sep 29th, 2004
Re: The UN’s plan to limit global warming could cost $122 trillion just for new energy in
Reply #3 - Oct 10th, 2018 at 10:58am
Print Post  
Renewable energy tech keeps bringing costs-per-kilowatt down.  It's a steady and long-running decline, which stands in stark contrast to fossil price histories.  Coal is being rapidly overcome by events.

More importantly, if you take out the considerable subsidies coal enjoys and factor in the high costs in terms of human health, heavy metal contamination, strip mining, etc, coal has been more expensive than renewables for a long time.

Deconstructing the power structures that want to keep us burning fossils is probably all it will really take to convert all our economies over to renewables...
  

2017 dream team (junior member)
and now as friendly as Jasmine!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
forgotten centrist
LNF Speaker
*****
Offline

bring back the middle
class!

Posts: 12,607
Joined: Sep 29th, 2004
Re: The UN’s plan to limit global warming could cost $122 trillion just for new energy in
Reply #4 - Oct 10th, 2018 at 12:31pm
Print Post  
I just read that coal consumption in the US dropped by about a third over the past 7 years, and the same amount in Europe over the past 4 years.  Furthermore, NEW renewable energy production is cheaper than NEW coal production right now.  The only instance where coal power is cheaper is with existing power plants (ie: where the sunk cost has already been paid.)

With this dynamic, new coal construction will rapidly drop to zero.  As old coal plants retire, it will accelerate a reduction in economies of scale.  Coal will become more expensive to dig, move, and dispose of, leading to faster decomissioning.

And all of this is without ever factoring in the high costs of coal subsidies, the high costs in terms of pollution and human health, the cascading economic effects of environmental damage, etc.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-10-09/the-end-of-coal-could-be-clos...
  

2017 dream team (junior member)
and now as friendly as Jasmine!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Limey.
LNF Speaker
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 19,309
Location: the County Palatine
Joined: Dec 14th, 2012
Re: The UN’s plan to limit global warming could cost $122 trillion just for new energy in
Reply #5 - Oct 10th, 2018 at 2:55pm
Print Post  
forgotten centrist wrote on Oct 10th, 2018 at 12:31pm:
I just read that coal consumption in the US dropped by about a third over the past 7 years, and the same amount in Europe over the past 4 years.  Furthermore, NEW renewable energy production is cheaper than NEW coal production right now.  The only instance where coal power is cheaper is with existing power plants (ie: where the sunk cost has already been paid.)

With this dynamic, new coal construction will rapidly drop to zero.  As old coal plants retire, it will accelerate a reduction in economies of scale.  Coal will become more expensive to dig, move, and dispose of, leading to faster decomissioning.

And all of this is without ever factoring in the high costs of coal subsidies, the high costs in terms of pollution and human health, the cascading economic effects of environmental damage, etc.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-10-09/the-end-of-coal-could-be-clos...




I'm soooo glad I work in renewables.... just need to get rid of our insane Conservative government here and we can really move ahead.
  

Under Capitalism, Man exploits Man.

Under Communism, it's the exact opposite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send TopicPrint
 
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HerePolitical Opinion Page - The Hot Seat › The UN’s plan to limit global warming could cost $122 trillion just for new energy in

LNF Home - Political Opinion Page
LNF Forums

Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Sports Forum - Entertainment - House
Military, History - Cooking and Crafts - Creative Writing
Off the Wall News - Science Forum - Tech Gadgets - Financial News - Humor
Bunker - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Chat Room





Drudge Report - News Max - Rush Limbaugh - FrontpageMag
Advertise on the LNF - Twitter LNF - LNF Archive - LNF News
LNF Blog
News and Political Links
Political Blogs
Add your website or blog
Political Columnists
Political Humor
A1 News Page
David Limbaugh
Political Frog
Conservatives Directory
President Trump Approval Poll
Presidential Party Election Poll News forum posting, privacy policy and member rules