Guest “just say no” by David Middleton
This is why they demanded a $240/gal tax on gasoline…
LIMITING GLOBAL WARMING COULD COST $122 TRILLION. THAT’S ‘NOT FEASIBLE,’ SAYS ONE ECONOMIST
Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor 10/09/2018
- The UN’s plan to limit global warming could cost $122 trillion just for new energy infrastructure.
- One environmental economist said the UN’s goal is “not feasible.”
- Scientists have also called into question spending trillions based on flawed climate models.
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.
That’s a price tag of between $51.2 trillion and $122 trillion by 2050 just for energy investments. Environmental economist Richard Tol said, given the high cost, the IPCC’s report is totally unrealistic.
“No, 1.5 degrees Celsius is not feasible,” Tol, an economics professor at the University of Sussex, told The Daily Caller News Foundation via email.
First, pursuing 1.5°C mitigation efforts requires a major reallocation of the investment portfolio, implying a financial system aligned to mitigation challenges.
The bulk of these investments are projected to be for clean electricity generation, particularly solar and wind power (0.09–1.0 trillion USD2010 yr–1 and 0.1–0.35 trillion USD2010 yr–1, respectively) as well as nuclear power (0.1–0.25 trillion USD2010 yr–1).
Furthermore, some fossil investments made over the next few years – or those made in the last few – will likely need to be retired prior to fully recovering their capital investment or before the end of their operational lifetime (Bertram et al., 2015a; Johnson et al., 2015; OECD/IEA and IRENA, 2017).
Not just “no”… But NO FRACKING WAY!!!
Every page is marked with “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute”… That’s fracking hilarious. They must be so emabarrased by this stinking pile of schist that they don’t want it to be cited, quoted or distributed.
This is how a carbon tax would affect typical fuel prices:
|Carbon tax per ton of CO2|
|Gasoline per gallon (retail)||$2.50||$0.22||$0.27||$240|
|Natural gas per mcf (residential)||$10.91||$1.33||$1.59||$1,434|
|Propane per gallon (residential)||$2.50||$0.14||$0.17||$152|
|Heating oil per gallon (residenial)||$3.07||$0.25||$0.30||$270|
|Kerosene per gallon (retail)||$3.29||$0.24||$0.29||$260|
|Coal per short ton (Powder River Basin)||$12.10||$52.52||$63.02||$56,720|
Just say NO! MAGA!
via Watts Up With That?
October 10, 2018 at 08:00AM