A reader asked a similar question the other day. First we need to calculate what it will take. Then we need to define “fair share”.
In a perpetually moving target, the UN says the world needs to commit $131 trillion by 2050 to address climate change. Let’s crunch the annual numbers, by country, and by person.
On March 20, 2023, I noted Don’t Worry, It Will Only Cost $131 Trillion to Address Climate Change
The UN is out with another fearmongering report on climate change. It’s labeled the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6).
A few years ago, the estimate was $98 trillion. Now it’s $131 Trillion. In a few years it will be $200 trillion.
Of course, all government estimates overstate the benefits and understate the costs, typically by a factor of 5 to 10.
However, given that I am perpetually optimistic, let’s ignore history and assume that a mere $131 trillion will suffice.
Since bragging by France triggered this post, let’s start with France.
France Exceeds Target!
Please consider this wonderful announcement: France greatly exceeds its commitments for climate financing in developing countries in 2022 (20 september 2023)
At the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Ambition Summit in New York in September 2023, Ministers Bruno Le Maire, Catherine Colonna and Agnès Pannier-Runacher, and Minister of State Chrysoula Zacharopoulou, announced that France provided €7.6 billion in climate financing in 2022, including €2.6 billion for adaptation. This exceeds the target set by President Macron at the end of 2020 by around 25%.
Bruno Le Maire, Minister of the Economy, Finance and Industrial and Digital Sovereignty, said: “These excellent figures demonstrate France’s commitment and steadfast approach as regards helping to combat climate change.
Lovely. Cheers to France for exceeding its commitment of €6.0 billion by an amazing €1.6 billion!
Wait a second, does “financing” mean spent or lent? Let’s optimistically assume France is handing out free money to the undeveloped world support the cause.
Here’s the key question: What does France need to do across the board for the next 26 years?
At 2.1% of global GDP, the French share of addressing the problem is $2,751,000,000,000.
Mercy sakes, that’s $2.751 trillion!
But that is through 2050. So France only needs to come up with about 1/26 of that per year. This is a very doable $106 billion per year. /sarcasm
What is the US Share?
Once again, taking into account my perpetual optimism, we can run the math for the US.
The US share of global GDP is 15.54 percent. The US needs to pony up $20.357 trillion. Don’t worry, we can spread that out over 26 years.
That’s a mere $783 billion per year for 26 years.
Again, this is clearly very doable. This is fortunate because the world will end if we don’t.
US Share by Percentage of Emissions
On a percentage basis, the US only needs to pony up 13.61 percent vs 30.69 percent for China and 8.29 percent for the EU.
But much of what China produces ends up in the US. So we need to account for that. And we need to support developing nations so that they only use renewables and do not advance economically like we did.
Thus, the US “fair” share is really closer to 25 percent or whatever the UN says it is. Then we need to take that a bit further by calculating a fair share on a person by person basis.
What’s Your “Fair Share”?
The Civilian Noninstitutional Population (CNP) of the US is 267,822,000. The CNP definition is persons 16 years of age and older residing in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, who are not inmates of institutions (e.g., penal and mental facilities, homes for the aged), and who are not on active duty in the Armed Forces.
We can calculate a rough estimate of personal fair share based on that number.
25 percent of $131 trillion is $32.75 trillion. Divided by 267,822,000 yields a starting point fair share estimate of $122,283 for anyone 16 and older. At 15.54 percent, the starting point is about $76,009.
But what about those between age 0 and 16? And what about those over the age of 16 still in school.
If you are the proud parent of anyone in that group, you need to pay for them too. And if you travel more than average, have a bigger house etc., your fare share needs to adjust accordingly.
I suspect most readers of this blog consume far more than their far share of global goods and services so they need to pony up somewhere between $200,000 and $1,000,000 as their fair share.
Wait There is Still More
My lead question was “Are you Willing to Pay and Do Your “Fair Share” to Address Climate Change?”
We have only discussed the “pay” portion, not the “do” portion.
To meet the climate goals, everyone needs to eliminate meat from their diet, abandon their car and use public transportation powered by electricity, eat insects for protein, stop travel by air, give up gas stoves, set the air conditioner level no lower than 80 degrees, and set heat in winter no higher than 65 degrees.
If you have a 4 bedroom home with only two kids, that is definitely unfair. You need to offer a free room to someone who is homeless.
In the name of fairness, everyone needs to dramatically reduce their standard of living.
John Kerry Says We Need “Money, Money, Money, Money”
The US is fully committed because John Kerry Says We Need “Money, Money, Money, Money” to Combat 1.5 Degrees of Climate Change
“So how do we get there? The lesson I’ve learned in last years, and I’ve learned it as secretary and leaned it since reinforced in spades, is money. money, money, money, money, money, money.”
Some may be shaking in their boots fearing China, Germany, India, and every country but France will fail to meet its fair share.
Not me. I am quite sure the French will make up for any global shortages.
Meanwhile, China is still building coal-fired plants to create electricity. Mercy!
I am sure France will cover that too.
But will the US cover its fair share? That’s a quite doable $783 billion per year for 26 years based on GDP percentage and about $1.26 trillion per year on a fair share of current consumption basis.
So that we do not have to depend on the generosity of the French, let me ask again: Are you Willing to Pay and Do Your “Fair Share” to Address Climate Change?
If you won’t, who will? France?
LOL Are we really stupid enough to fathom that mankind can reverse climate change by cutting CO2 emissions ? ! Just incredible all that bs we ve been told and sold in recent years ! The all fools tipping point has definitely been the previous cock and bull story aka the Covid hype ! Can t you see idiots , it is all about controlling and exploiting the masses, by the fckn elites !
And who is you? Is that China? India? Me?
No thanks, I’ll pass since I’m not the one with multiple mansions and private jets.
The CCP is bribing the Administrative States in USA and Europe to follow the CO2 BS while they build coal plants—1600 scientists say CO2 is NOT an issue but—the band plays on.
I look at what the rich and government elitists are doing. Living high on the hog. They aren’t living as if there is a climate crisis. Don’t know how true, but its been claimed Al Gore is a billionaire. Seems to me that he should be giving his wealth away to buy and install heat pumps for people that they are practical for. The top 1% apparently emit as much carbon as the lowest 66%. It would seem that the 1% have the most cutting to do. I see them in no rush to do so.
Good topic Mish. It seemed to generate a lot of discussion. And I actually had some free time this weekend to peruse the comments and reply to a few of them. Though some things were missing.
The ever-optimistic Jeff Green did not show up to tell us how the rapid growth in renewables and EVs would soon solve the global warming problem.
The “more CO2 is better” cult didn’t make a significant appearance. Nor did the “smoking is good for you” crowd.
I haven’t seen the “Maunder Minimum” cult lately, telling everyone how we will be in an ice age in a few years because the sun is dimming. Maybe they are all busy with their flat earth meetings.
Or the people who think all the warming is from oceanic volcanoes.Where did they go?
Also missing were the Milankovitch acolytes, who believe the planet is warming up because we are currently 10000 years into a 100000 year long cooling cycle. I’m not sure how they reach that conclusion.
Or those who say the atmosphere is actually cooling, not warming. Though I’m not sure they ever mention which part of the atmosphere is cooling.
Not too many promoting their handful of “real scientists” while disparaging the tens of thousands of scientists who actually work in the field.
One completely new idea was the claim that we need to “stop planting so many trees!” Love that one.
The big theme in comments were those who say that global warming is all part of a big elite conspiracy to control the “little people” and “take your freedoms away”.
I really miss that IGNORE button.
By the way Mish, your analysis of the costs to fight global warming is very good.
Those costs are very high. Which is why the world has been unable to make any meaningful progress in the struggle to slow or stop global warming. And why we will continue to lose this battle going forward.
The levels of CO2 and other GHGs will continue to increase thanks to man. So Global Warming will continue. The ice will keep melting. The oceans will keep rising. Extreme weather events will become more expensive. Insurance companies will pull back on providing coverage in more areas. There will be more migration of all species, including man, from areas that become less hospitable for those species. And more species will simply disappear.
All because we are unable to kick our addiction to the energy provided by the very fossil fuels that are causing the problem.
Got oil?
Wow – seven thumbs down until I made it 6.
I will ask for an IGNORE button.
With WordPress, if it’s easily doable I don’t have to wait months or years for something.
Thank you!
The up/downvote count should also be separate. When reading long list of comments, I skip those that are long and have zero count, but +10/-10 shouldn’t be 0.
Actually I take some pride in the thumbs down. To me it confirms that I am on the right track while pissing off those at the extremes.
You are the extreme! I was wondering what type of father Greta Thunberg had. Now we know.
I don’t think that Greta invests heavily in oil companies like I do.
“One completely new idea was the claim that we need to “stop planting so many trees!” Love that one.”
The “claim” was from someone who made $ and a name for himself making a counter-argument 4 years ago and was still given a prominent position at COP28. Clearly you didn’t grasp the point (or maybe didn’t peruse the article?) if you’re lumping that in with your other examples. Hopefully you look back and see the elucidation about 0.01% as well. Big picture view is needed WRT the climate system, focus on atmospheric CO2 to such an extent is misallocation of resources and just plain wasteful.
Actually I read the article completely. Your interpretation of it is dramatically different from mine. The big complaints about planting trees was because they were being planted in places where other vegetation would do better, so the trees were actually a negative. In addition, too many corporations and organizations were using tree planting as a way to greenwash their otherwise high emissions.
The world still needs more trees, but we have to be better at where and why we are planting them.
It isn’t a quantity issue, it’s a quality issue. The ‘new’ trees aren’t as good at sequestering as natural (old growth) forests (neither is wood from a 30 y.o. tree versus 300 y.o. tree), thereby the guy’s request that greenwashing and plantation-like “forests” be dropped in favor of focusing on preservation/conservation of existing areas. Throwing in a bunch of forests isn’t going to effect the change that the guy promoted (to much acclaim), but the money sure flowed into companies promoting this as a “green” activity.
If subterranean carbon storage is one’s focus the grasslands that have been removed from the planet are the most effective way to go.Planting vast new temperate forests was eliminated as a geoengineering approach to decreasing atmospheric CO2 15 years ago, but I suppose like fashion all of these ideas are cyclical.
Your garden , your shed, your attic, all full of the stuff …..You must be pissing oil by now …..
maybe if we didn’t have 8,000,000,000 carbon beings on planet only able to handle 1 1/2 billion
we’ve successfully strip mined earths resources
no wonder gen Z is pissed
The most underappreciated comment. OTOH, it provides a study in sociology.
The whole question is based on a false premise. There is no need to control CO2 emissions. There is a great need to control the emissions of hot air coming from corrupt and ill informed politicians. I’m all in favor of that and would gladly fund any such effort. For those interested in this great cause.
https://ourcountryourchoice.com/
Overpopulation is the problem. Government can not confront this issue short of mass extinction. I don’t favor that.
Your assessment is correct, but, there is a thing called birth control. Besides the birthrate is below replacement in all Western countries and many others. Africa is the worst offender and any aid should be tied to birth control.
It’s in the 40’s in my house as I type this. I heat the room I am in to 60 degrees and I heat the house only as needed to keep the pipes from freezing. I live close to DC so it gets cold and hot in this area. I did not use air conditioning last summer.
If you are serious about climate change or think it is an existential crises, join me in ditching AC and minimizing heat.
You go girl!
Good luck to ya!
“$122,283 for anyone 16 and older. At 15.54 percent, the starting point is about $76,009”.
Pay pay, pay!
Do, doesn’t matter.
What I am curious about. Is the integrity of the program. For those who actually “do” or care for the planet (more so than the majority) not get rewarded for their efforts. Aka, doing the right thing. That is planting trees, reduced consumption decades ago, reduced transportation and air flights decades ago, no longer cash crop land and grow grass (hay)sequestering carbon. There several people in existence that does not believe CO2 is not a poison, yet reduces pollution in other aspects in their lifestyles. Do they (we) receive a carbon credit? Back credit payments? Grants or future investment dollars to do more for the planet?
NO.
And that is the reason why this is not a real issue. John Kerry will not down size his home, not any of those politicians will share part(s)of their over sized homes…..
NO.
Will certain people be able to continue to live the lifestyle? Fly in airplanes to climate meetings in France? Board meetings in other States? Buy food from other countries? Eat bugs, not meat?
No.
You can expect to catch these hypocrites eating their privileged meals, flying all over the World….. In the name of have saved the world and doing their part to organize the rest of us to conform. Conformity is the key here…. And absolutely a two tier system will be obvious after the fact.
Sigh.
Climate change is not the scam; the solution is. Without China and India on board, the goal is not remotely achievable. China and India cannot and will not get on board as long as their standard or living is unacceptable. Then add Africa, south America and everywhere else the standard is lower than those who demand action.
In the west, we live in a climate-controlled bubble and refuse to see the real people outside it – except, of course, the enemies who are out to kill us (as determined by our all-caring government and dutifully reported by the MSM).
Our governments have no power to control the climate but they can use the issue, and are using it, to control us while taking freedom away.
You haven’t noticed? Drip, drip, drip.
Yes climate changes! Yeah! Nothing new, no debate there. It’s the CO2 hysterics that are the issue. Let them live by their belief system, I’ll live by mine. The problem comes when they seek to use the power of the state to impose their ill informed beliefs on others.
It’s unfortunate that scare tactics create fewer supporters in the long run. There are some simple solutions that are nowhere near the top of the list more people would be willing to support. Paint streets and rooftops white in urban areas. This reduces heat absorption which then transfers to the air. Encourage the use of clothes lines. Some home owners associations prohibit them. Halt immigration. An expanding population needs housing, which requires destroying land where plants remove carbon dioxide from the air. Reclaim polluted industrial lands by planting trees, shrubs, and grass.
For thirty years, we have planted 2000 trees a year on our farm. We converted all crops to grass land, or hay fields (aka the most efficient c02 sequestering plant) , we use 400L of diesel per year to farm this land and our activities to feed 700 families each year. Yet. No carbon credit. No grants. No funding of any sort to continue saving the planet…… Policies continue to pay ABC companies to build machines that take carbon out of the atmosphere, when farmers do it daily and could do it more efficiently of funded in the same way. Yet. No talk about doing so. The govt is exposed for who they are. Hypocrites and under scise…… There is no integrity behind the climate fear. Just the movement of dollars to where certain people believe the money should be
Sigh
FACT: what is in Exhaled Air:
Exhaled air contains:
nitrogen – 78% oxygen – 17% carbon dioxide – 4% other gases – 1%.
Being that John Kerry emits 17% Carbon Dioxide, I am asking that he hold his breath for 10 minutes per hour, every hour, for the balance of his life.
OK, I will throw in Biden as a Bonus!
Nice.
CO2 is not a poison . Without carbon or carbon dioxide, life on earth would perish…. Is this a heat check, to see who doesn’t know their science?
Higher CO2 concentrations allow plants to survive with less water which is leading to a greening of the planet!
Climate hysteria is all about control. It’s amazing to see all the useful idiots, complete science illiterates, who champion the cause: Greta being the poster child.
Nothing is a poison until you get too much of it. Like water?
Now there is a workable solution I can get behind.
“Are you Willing to Pay and Do Your “Fair Share” to Address Climate Change?”
Absolutely!!!
But only because it is so simple, easy and straightforward to accurately determine what each individual “Fair Share” should be.
You cannot fix stupid.
.
We plant 1000’s of saplings on our farm each year for the last three decades. Applying for carbon credits? No chance of receiving funding. Grants. Etc…..
Farmers sequester and use carbon daily. The most of any industry yet pays the most carbon tax than any other industry. Hard to believe, funding is made to ABC companies to make machines do what farmers do naturally for thousands of years. Million dollar machines…… Our society is sick for thinking the wheel needs to be reinvented
You can’t fix stupid, but, you can sure take advantage of it!
Very interesting. I feel I am on the right trajectory. I have given up heating my house and have not run heater in two years! ( I live in Florida)
As far as the rest of the items I am NOT willing to do those things.
Me too.
I have quit going anywhere and stopped eating food.
I don’t bathe. Saves fresh water in addition to heating costs.
Time to step up to the plate Ken. If Lisa can do it, so can you!
As a wizened old ww II combat vet once told me: “I’ll show them. I won’t eat my lunch!”
I read somewhere that wealth is the ability to consume and waste more energy and resources than others. Something similar could be said about climate change activism; the ability to steal an uncommon amount of tax dollars and waste it on BS that doesn’t work.
Our farm waits, and waits for carbon rebates, harvesting a d sequestering 100s of tons of carbon each year….. Not a cent coming back to do more. I wonder if any will funds support farmers for doing their part?
Stop your whining Mr Farmer. I have no sympathy that you too can’t get in on the government sponsored shake down of tax payers.
“the ability to steal an uncommon amount of tax dollars and waste it on BS that doesn’t work”, Isn’t that the definition of a government program?
The amount of nonsense here about what is happening to the atmosphere is both depressing and maddening…that so much incorrect information is OK on what is supposed to be a fact based webpage. If this level of BS was on here about deficits or bond rates or whatever it would not be allowed. But hey if it is climate science everybody is an expert here. What is the point asking the question if the discussion is full of nonsense?
It’s not nonsense, it’s just indeterminate.
Like what the Federal rate of interest really should be.
It’s not the facts but the interpretation and context. Discussion with others helps us broaden our view – whether politics, finance, religion or climate change. No one knows all the “facts”.
Spoken like a true climate expert wait for his government research grant to prove that increased CO2 levels are causing dizziness and leading to climate denialism.
As money shifts from fossil fuels to renewable energy,the present money on fossil fuels isn’t going there anymore. That can shift into RE instead. The beauty of RE is that it is just cheaper per unit of energy than FFs. Instead of $9.2 trillion a year, the cost shifts down to a trillion a year according to Bloomberg.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-28/the-cost-to-reach-net-zero-by-2050-is-actually-a-bargain
The Cost to Reach Net Zero By 2050 Is Actually a BargainA multi-trillion-dollar global investment seems massive. But the closer you look, the smaller the numbers become.
A trillion here, a trillion there: The headline figure in the latest analysis of the costs of achieving net-zero emissions, from McKinsey & Co., is a staggering $9.2 trillion a year, every year, between now and 2050. That comes to a grand total of $275 trillion worth of investments in energy assets and land-use systems ranging from agriculture to forestry.
For one, the $9.2 trillion figure includes total annual investments, lumping current and new spending together. The world now spends around $3.7 trillion on what the report calls “high-emissions assets,” such as fossil-fuel extraction, refining, and power generation; cement and steel production; and gasoline-powered vehicles. McKinsey estimates that roughly one of these trillions could be shifted to low-emissions assets like renewable power generation, building electrification, and electric vehicles. That trillion would be on top of $2 trillion the world already spends today on such clean, lean technologies and the supporting infrastructure.
All that puts truly new spending at “only” $3.5 trillion per year—but even that is an overestimate of the additional spending required to get to net-zero emissions by midcentury, and thus to have a chance of limiting global average temperature increases to the vaunted 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold.
All told, the difference between current policies and net zero by 2050 is only $25 trillion in total spending over the next 30 years, or less than an extra $1 trillion per year on average.
So now it’s $275 trillion on the way to a quadrillion.
It actually comes down to 1 trillion a year. Some really good people have worked this out.
The only thing im sure of at this stage in life is that im not putting up with that crap and totally ok with going out with a bang. These clowns can go to hell.
I did my part tonite and ate a crap load of bbq in Kansas City. They have zero clue of the hell they would unleash from getting rid of cows. Zero.
Cows are not the problem.
The pigs wearing suits collecting the carbon tax and funneling this tax into areas that do not save the planet, are the problem.
And the war pigs!
You tell them Mr. Johnson!
Mike, this minor typo made me laugh out loud: “And if you travel more than average, have a bigger house etc., your FARE share needs to adjust accordingly”. “Fare” share is perfect since you’re paying for being “taken for a ride” in more ways than one.
A typo or intentional?
Of course. I will do my part to not get involved in any wars nor spend money with virtue signaling corps nor finance at TBTF.
But would you blow up a pipeline of one of your closest allies, deficit spend to bring consumption forward, or, throw open the borders to increase the carbon footprint off all those immigrant?
The sad thing is that US marketable securities outstanding spiked over a trillion dollars between June 2 and July 31, as reported by WolfStreet. It points to how ridiculous the US government has become, when a ridiculous $783 billion climate change outlay appears plausible in comparison.
But we have endless dollars to spend, we’ll just print them up. What could go wrong?
https://www.wired.com/story/stop-planting-trees-thomas-crowther/
“In a cavernous theater lit up with the green shapes of camels and palms at COP28 in Dubai, ecologist Thomas Crowther, former chief scientific adviser for the United Nations’ Trillion Trees Campaign, was doing something he never would have expected a few years ago: begging environmental ministers to stop planting so many trees.”
It was a nonsensical idea back in 2019, but it’s nice the instigator eventually came to the understanding that knowledgeable people held years earlier. The folly of this effort is compounded by the instigator making a living and a name for himself and still being considered an ‘authority’ on the subject matter.
That said, over the past ~60 years the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has been about 100ppm, which is a rise of 0.01%. Thinking this is an important issue, let alone the ONLY important one, is misguided at best. The similarity of this faction of the environmental movement to organized religion is striking in many ways.
more like a rise of over 30% in atmospheric co2 during that time
300 ppm to 400 ppm is a 33% rise.
33% ( one third) of 300 is 100. 100 plus 300 is 400. We are there.
I know math is considered racist nowadays, but still…
33% and temps. rose not.
See the above response to Jeff – putting the numbers in perspective of the whole atmosphere, not just a ratio of observed CO2 concentrations. Apologies if that wasn’t clear enough.
There is meaning behind the units “PPM” and that is something lost on too many people. Focusing on this one variable to such an extent is illogical, yet here we are. The amount of water vapor added to the atmosphere by the activities of the 6 billion people added to the planet over that time is not trivial. The change in land use (monocrop agriculture, urbanization, etc) and resulting decrease in surface albedo is a significantly underappreciated driver of observed surface temperature changes. Climate is a complex system of complex systems, hyper-focus on 1 small variable is an enormous waste of resources, but because of the money involved a few find it quite profitable.
And temps. rose not.
PPM stands for parts per million. an increase of 100 ppm = an overall atmospheric change of 0.01% because 100PPM equals 0.000100, then make that a per centum by lopping off a couple zeros to the right of the decimal point.
Big picture, Jeff, not just the delta for [CO2].
“ That said, over the past ~60 years the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has been about 100ppm, which is a rise of 0.01%”
A 100 ppm increase from 320 ppm to 420 ppm is not 0.01%. It’s an increase of 31.25%.
And it’s going to keep going up. Roughly another 2.5 ppm every year. Along with other greenhouse gasses like methane.
Apparently, all those trees that were planted don’t seem to be helping very much.
We seem to be fixated on the ppm and not what the real problem here is?
What is the real problem? Everyone here appears to know the answer.
As a farmer, I have an answer for you, too
My green house? Has a CO2 emitter. Getting the CO2 above 700 ppm is ideal. Plants flourish. Is it toxic for humans? No is it warmer than normal? No.
Unfortunately, most people don’t farm anymore and the gifts of life such as a fluc tuating CO2 concentration is natural. CO2 locked in the soil or rock, limestone is also perhaps a tragedy. Unlocking carbon is part of the cycle of life…. And not necessarily a burden to humans.
Hi Will
I don’t disagree that more CO2 is good for plants. But plants are not the only living thing on the planet.
There are many different forms of life on the planet and different ideal levels of CO2 for each.
And yes, CO2 levels do fluctuate naturally. But only over very long time periods.
In the last million years, CO2 levels have fluctuated from a low of 180 ppm to a high of 300 ppm. It takes 100,000 years for a CO2 cycle to move from 300 ppm to 180 ppm and back to 300 ppm.
Life on earth as we know it today, developed in that range from 180 ppm to 300 ppm. Life adapted to that range.
For the last 10,000 years, CO2 has been relatively stable at 280 ppm. As humans developed an agrarian lifestyle and grew crops, those crops did very well at those levels. Well enough for human population to explode.
In fact, for the last 10,000 years, all life on earth adapted well to 280 ppm and the temperatures that went that level. Including crops.
But in the last 200 years, man has increased CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 420 ppm and it continues to increase by roughly 2.5 ppm each year because of our emissions. This is not natural. So don’t try to tell me it is. Scientists can tell that the extra CO2 is from burning fossil fuels based on the isotopes of carbon in the CO2.
This may be good for plants. But it isn’t good for us.
The extra CO2 is warming the planet and causing climate change and more extreme weather. Droughts, floods, disease, pests, fires etc are not a farmers best friends.
See my reply to Jeff. I was viewing the larger picture, total atmospheric composition and not simply the delta in [CO2] during that time period. Apologies if I was not precise enough in my post.
But they seem to be highly correlated with your portfolio return. I think you are thus indebted to Mr. Farmer and should share your profits with him. It’s only fair!
Sorry. I am a capitalist, not a communist.
And no, those trees didn’t effect the change that they were championed to do, which was the point of the article. If I were wittier I’d make a quip about not seeing the forest for the trees with some people’s intense focus on atmospheric CO2 🙂
Personally I’m willing to pay money to have MORE climate change, because a warmer climate is simply better for humans and for life in general. The world is COLD (59F on average) as we are currently still in an ice age. Life thrives in a warmer climate. We will be able to farm much further north and fewer of us will die from the cold (far more people die from the cold than from heat).
No need to pay more. It’s going to keep getting warmer for many more decades, if not centuries. And we are going to get more climate change; more droughts, floods, forest fires, heat domes, etc etc.
Your wish is granted. Though I don’t think it will work out as well as you think it will. Lol!
And fewer blizzards, ice storms, and fewer days below zero F. The growing season will be longer too. C3 plants will grow faster and have better yields, C4 plants (mostly grasses) will be unaffected, their photosynthesis path is independent of CO2 levels.
However, do advise the grandchildren to settle at least 75 feet above current sea level.
Or invest in houseboats.
The growth of grasses also benefit from an increased CO2 level.
They like 800-1200 ppm.
Yes! Grass, all domrstic crops, trees of course…. All benefit.
Though I find it odd that the alarmists are starting to attack methane emmissions next. Another gas that is essential to our planet. Though, what the social scientists also forget about methane as they forget about carbon dioxide…. Is that bacteria accounts for 90% of the production of both gases. The shift of humans contribution to the total may appear significant…. Yet is nothing when we include all life forms on earth.
To eliminate all CO2 production and methane would guarantee one thing….. The death of all life forms on planet earth. Eliminating all bacteria and insects would also be a quicker path to another mass extinction period
My favorite topic. Thanks Mish.
First. To all the sceptics here, such as the Captain.
“ 1)If climate change is occurring, and it may well be, how do we know it is not just cyclical?”
We know it’s not natural or cyclical because science understands all the natural and cyclical components of climate. Scientists can explain the entire 4.5 billion year climate history of the earth. I won’t elaborate on the cycles here because I have done it so many times before. And because it’s mostly a waste of time explaining things to people who refuse to even try to understand. I could answer that question 1000 times, and people like the Captain would still keep asking that question. Which is why I miss the IGNORE feature so I don’t even have to see their moronic posts.
“ 2)All of the things that “science” says about carbon content in the atmo may be true but that does not prove warming is man made.”
We know the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere comes from mankind burning fossil fuels. We know that by measuring the three isotopes of carbon (12, 13, 14) in the carbon. I could elaborate but why bother. You probably won’t understand or care. Science is simply beyond many here.
To simplify things; we know global warming is happening and we know it is caused by mans excess use of fossil fuels.
But just because we understand the problem, does not mean that we are going to be able to fix it. We are not going to do anywhere near enough to prevent this problem from worsening because it is simply too expensive and requires too much sacrifice. As evidence, look at the 28 COPs that have taken place. Lots of empty promises and empty words for 28 years now. And every year we keep consuming MORE fossil fuels.
Which means Global Warming and the resulting climate change is going to keep getting worse as the years go by. This worsening is going to cost us all a lot; economically, ecologically, in our health and sometimes our lives.
It is already too late to prevent the planet from exceeding the 1.5C limit that was first targeted back in 2015. And we won’t be able to prevent the planet from exceeding the 2C upper limit set that same year, based on how little we are currently doing. 2023 will be the warmest year since we started keeping records. 2024 will likely be worse.
It is difficult to estimate what the annual economic cost of climate change will be as the years go by. I expect it will soon be over 1 trillion per year and keep accelerating. But how you can accurately measure that will be a challenge.
I’m just waiting for the morons here who still think global warming is a hoax, to eventually complain about why our leaders never did anything to stop it.
In the meantime, I will continue to profit from my investments in oil and gas stocks. I can’t do anything about global warming, but at least I can profit from it.
Morons, Ignore Button, $1T cost, 2C upper limit, Is a hoax, I can profit from it
PapaD, you have absolutely outdone yourself with this latest post. You are absolutely the very definition of hypocrite. Are you sure you have a heart & a soul? No wonder you’re so despised on this forum. Why do you keep coming back?
I know one thing is for sure. You like to tell people they’re morons and to act all sanctimonious that’s for sure. I bet you drive a Hummer, an original one for that matter.
But whatever you do, make sure you don’t reply to me, because that would break your creed and show what a true fraud you are.
ROTFLMAO! Gotcha!
Perhaps I’ll reply on behalf of PapaDave: You obviously don’t read what he writes – you just gloss over it and focus on what you don’t like to hear. He doesn’t call everyone a moron – only those who complain with no solution, ignore the obvious, or just offer insults. Yes, “moron” unnecessarily insulting. He says look after yourself because no one else will and he’s right – whether you like it or not.
You don’t have to agree with him but open yourself to alternative opinions. As for being “despised”, that is a very powerful and irrational emotion and not shared by “everyone”.
I don’t always like contrary opinions but I always appreciate the opportunity they provide.
Thanks Mish.
A guy who yammers on about how incredibly true HGAW (which I agree with BTW) is while constantly extolling the virtues of profiting off the oil industry is hypocritical, no ands if or butts.
His posts always have negative down votes. And this isn’t my first spat with PapaD. I respect his knowledge on most issues, but I don’t like that he scolds us for wanting to collectively vent about the MANY issues facing our country and then “assuming” I’m not trying to better my life. I’m a patriotic, rugged individualist just like he probably is.
If he’d just stick to imparting all of that knowledge he has on a variety of issues, then he’d see some positive up votes.
Perhaps, it’s you that doesn’t pay enough attention to his messages.
Your last sentence is exactly how I feel, and why I post on the MISH Site.
We are not here to all agree, and personally quite the opposite for me. I don’t know everything by a long shot, but I am open to knowledge and appreciate many post on this site.
In fact I have personally made a financial decision recently, using some of Dave’s shared knowledge (Thanks D). So far, so good!
Lighten up.
PapaDave has helped many here.
I don’t see him as hypocritical, he’s pretty consistent.
You just have to understand that he is completely closed-minded and incapable of even attempting to understand any point of view that he does not endorse. Apparently he believes that everyone is entitled to their own facts and not not just an opinion.
Okay, how about oxymoron?
Having unwavering faith that HGAW climate change doesn’t exactly jive with being a big proponent of profiting off the oil industry.
Again, I could care less about his opinions on HGAW & oil profiteering.
WHAT I DON’T LIKE IS HIM SCOLDING ME / US FOR VENTING AND ASSUMING I DON’T TRY TO BETTER MYSELF.
That’s the opinion I can live without.
Thanks, LH!
Tom , out done yourself papa D? This is a pissing contest?
I have planted nearly 30 000 trees for twenty years. Converted all crops to grass or hay. Use only 400L of diesel to grow ready to eat food for 700 families. 3 times the average farm in 100 acres. Sequester some 200 plus tons of carbon into the soil each year. Another 180 tons converted into feed….Yet. Not one carbon credit. Not one subsidy not one grant, no tax incentives and no media reports of doing so. My carbon tax bill is over $35, 000 per annum…. And the govt threatens to shut down our farm and other farms for not confirming…. Quiting my day job in city, to save the world 28 years ago…. Doesn’t seem to be hip anymore.
Pay the tax and shit up seems to be more accurate
“We know it’s not natural or cyclical because science understands all the natural and cyclical components of climate.”
Balderdash!
The SCIENCE is SETTLED!!!
First it was the earth is flat.
Then it was crystal spheres with the earth at the center.
Then it was circular orbits around the sun.
Then elliptical orbits.
Then stars turned out to be very very far away.
The the nebula turned out to be galaxies of stars even further away.
Then there were billions and billions of galaxies.
Then the galaxies aren’t static but space itself is expanding.
First everything was composed of earth, air, fire and water.
Then everything was composed of a little tiny thing you couldn’t see.
And for a while burning was supported by phlogiston (I just threw that in).
Then the tiny things had electrons and protons.
Then uncharged neutrons.
Then the protons and neutrons were made of tinier thingy’s.
And it turns out there are lots more tinier and bigger short lived thingy’s.
For those that don’t have a clue – SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED.
And while some idiots believe so, we don’t know everything yet.
I know it’s unsettling but learn to live with it.
I am so full of folks that are full of themselves.
.
For Science to not change, the World would have to become totally stagnant.
If anything at all were introduced to the entire World, after it became stagnated, then Science would have to change somewhere, to understand what this New Thing was, and how it will now effect Everything On Earth.
Science will forever evolve, because it has to…
Lighten up Lisa!
Pap Dave has obviously figured out the science of procreation and he’s making lots of money in the stock market! So he’s not a total ignorant, stupid and sluggish as one might guess.
Yup glad to hear and read your views too. The possibilities are endless.
Though what baffles my mind. The sun. The sun is the source of our heat. Yet. Very little s dentists and social scientists mention or reference the ups and downs of the sun, affecting our climate. The magnetic field also weakening over the last 150 years also has a lot to do with the climate. Not sure why scientists do not expand on this as well…. The change in the last four years in the mage tix field has affected many crops. Yes I crop. And noticed slight changes I. Yields. Especially in the lack of heat units for the last four years. Despite the higher recorded temps in some areas around the world. Does this not baffle scientists? Never mind the social scientists? 🤔
Hi Will. I have mentioned this many times before but you may not have been here or read what I wrote. Scientists understand the sun and its role in our climate. To think that they ignore or don’t understand the sun is simply incorrect.
The sun’s output and the amount of energy that the earth receives from the sun is remarkably stable over millions of years.
The more significant change is in earth’s orbit around the sun (eccentricity), the change in its tilt (obliquity) and its spin axis wobble (precession). These changes happen over periods of 100,000 years, 41,000 years and 26,000 years and are responsible for altering the amount of energy that the earth actually receives from the sun. So it isn’t the sun that’s changing, it’s the earth changing that slightly increases or decreases the amount of energy received from the sun. These are called the Milankovitch cycles and are responsible for the cooling or warming periods that result in ice ages every 100,000 years.
These cycles are all currently in cooling phases and will be for many tens of thousands of years more. If it wasn’t for mankind, the earth would enter another ice age in perhaps 50,000 to 70,000 years.
So, the current warming is not from the sun or from these long term cycles.
It’s from our use of fossil fuels.
Heat units or Growing Degree Days are increasing throughout the US. Though, like the weather, they are local. Some areas can go down. But most are going up.
“ Between 1970 and 2021, the number of GDD increased at 97% of 246 stations analyzed across the contiguous U.S.”
“ Over this period, GDD increased by 525 on average, ranging from -140 in Great Falls, Mont. to +1818 in Reno, Nev. The average rate of change was 10 additional GDD per year.”
https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/growing-degree-days
Papa Dave once again proves he knows nothing about science or the scientific method and is easily duped by athe appeal to authority device. The refuge of the tube. But dang! He’s doing really well in stocks! 😁
Well, you can actually speak some sense that I can agree with as long as you stop bragging about your stock picks, and how rich they made you.
Hi Max, Alex, Stu, Lisa, Tom, Traction.
To clarify my position: the reason I have invested in oil companies is because I believe that they will benefit from the situation that exists this decade. That situation begins with the global warming problem, and then moves on to the world’s response to global warming, the energy transition. Oil companies have responded to this situation by changing their focus from maximizing production and building reserves to maximizing profit while maintaining reserves.
I don’t really care if people call me a hypocrite for investing in oil while also understanding that it is a major contributor to global warming. As I always say, I can’t change what is happening in the world, but I can profit from it.
I also do not care if people think I am bragging about my investment success. My primary reasons for sharing what I am investing in (including giving specific stock recommendations) is to share with others, just as Realist and Eddie were doing when I first discovered this blog. I think of this as being selfless, rather than selfish. Whether others choose to take advantage of my investment suggestions is up to them. And I am sure that some of them may not work out. Investing has risks.
When I explain “my” investing in oil scenario, it’s actually what I picked up from Realist. Kudos to him.
I am also a big believer in self improvement and focusing on what we can control in our lives, rather than whining endlessly like spoiled children.
Finally, I think that global warming is going to transform from a problem today to a huge problem in the future. At some point I will taper down my oil investments because they are likely to become targets for big taxes and lawsuits later on.
Sincerely,
PapaDave
Whether anyone likes it or not PapaDave has identified one of the best investments for the next 5-15 years. And he has occasionally shared that information freely. Despite the incessant harping.
Yes.
It’s odd that so many people have voted your comment down. Profit from oil and gas. Like this is something new!? Or that buying Apple stock is more humane? Or better for the planet? Or buying EV stocks…. Is the better alternative…. Crazy that people drink the Kool aid and believe it’s healthier
a recent study put the global cost at 1.8% of global GDP, ie, about 1.5 trillion USD
https://sites.udel.edu/climatechangehub/rising-global-economic-lossdamage-report2023/
Any system based on money is destined to fail for sustainability. Thunk about what got us to this point and humankind (that’s all of us) is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Eventually wars will go nuclear and wipe out millions.Madmen trying to take over the world don’t care about sustainability. It will all end badly. Glad I won’t be around to see it but I’m already preparing my kids accordingly.
Wow! I was feeling a little down but you cheered me right up! Thanks!
Perhaps if the entire world slapped massive tariffs on China, we could get them to pay for all of this!
Seriously though, I can think of no better way of sabotaging our climate objectives then by permitting free trade with the world’s biggest emitter. Any climate solutions that don’t address China (and increasingly India as well), don’t address climate.
EXACTLY!!! And throw in India for that matter. I believe America’s emissions have either been falling or staying relative stable since at least 2015.
And let’s start a war with them too! Them dang, dirty China men! USA! USA! How dare they not believe in our myths and laugh at us for our folly?
Africa, India or China. How dare they want what we Americans want. 🤔
The thought that they can have what we have and follow the same pattern of recklessness. In clear cutting the land. Using cheap and abundant fossil fuels. Tax them and prevent them from having what we have! LoL
– First we need to calculate what it will take “Financially” as in Money PP. Then we need to define what is a persons “Fair Share” as in Give Up PP
> I think the “Yes/No” question is first, because with a No, the rest is moot.
– “Financially”, the starting point is thought to be about $76,009PP, But Realistically, somewhere between $200,000PP and $1,000,000PP
> I would definitely go with the 200K-1MPP, but that is far too Low. After you give for the first time, and in large numbers and dollars, they Always Want More & More.
– “Fair Share” means everyone needs to eliminate meat from their diet, abandon their car and use public transportation powered by electricity, eat insects for protein, stop travel by air, give up gas stoves, set the air conditioner level no lower than 80 degrees, and set heat in winter no higher than 65 degrees.
> Good Luck with that! No Meat? No Car? No Freedom? Insects? No Air Travel? Air, Heat, Gas, House Under Total Government Control? Um?
– “Caveat” ex. If you have a 4 bedroom home with only two kids, that is definitely unfair. You need to offer a free room to someone who is homeless.In the name of fairness. > Everyone needs to dramatically reduce their standard of living. Um?
I resoundingly Vote “NO” (can I keep the pen?)
I suspect, conformity will come when the interest rates rise above 10%,again.
The rise in interest rates will force many into selling their assets. Govt’s default in debt obligations. Food inflation will be above 30% per year. Prices of homes will likely fall by 50% to start, maybe fall by 80%? Soup lines will return like in the dirty 30’s….. Imagine that! All from the rise in inter at rates. Fossil fuel cars? No one will have jobs to pay for these mega polluters. Electric cars? Only for the wealthy. Land will be so cheap. All the land could be purchased by the elite or central banks. You may own nothing, and for the short term whilst the dust settles, you will be happy. Happy not having to pay for the debts. Eat bugs? Well if you don’t have a job. No home , you won’t have much of a choice? All by 2030? As planned byvthevWEF?
Let’s hope that you’re incorrect, but thanks for the thoughts!
We are not limited to insects:
“…an entire frog that has been coated with chocolate, using only “the finest baby frogs, dew picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk chocolate envelope and lovingly frosted with glucose.”
Just like me, everybody in Colorado rides a bicycle, so we are not paying your invoice.
Not everybody. Not even close.
He’s being sarcastic.
I think it’s pretty funny to watch John Kerry pretending that his calling in life is to save the planet.
ps. But to answer your question, Mish, I’m doing my part, and have committed to burping less.
So far, I have good days, and bad days.
My morning laugh! Thanks.
How about farts?
After these condescending elites have their private jets, private yachts, fleet of staff-vehicles, second/third/fourteenth house sold & scrapped, I think we can have a discussion about who has to pay for polluting the planet.
I already contribute to the ongoing climate change scam with almost everything I buy due to passed on charges. Climate change is a scam foisted upon us, along with the so called Covid vaccines.
ZERO.
I hereby commit not to emit any more CO2 than the 3 highest COP28 delegates.
$131 trillion is a number so large it doesn’t have any practical meaning. They may as well have said $infinity dollars. All for something we probably won’t much notice. The Dutch might have to add a foot to their dikes.
Get rid of all of the private jets, and then we can talk about shared responsibility.
In 50 years I’m sure historians and scientists will get a good laugh at the delusions of the present cabal of climate crazies.
Not even remotely.
1)If climate change is occurring, and it may well be, how do we know it is not just cyclical? So by the time we darken the skies with chemtrails and have everyone eating ze bugs without a steak to be had, who is to say it doesn’t swing back the other way.
2)All of the things that “science” says about carbon content in the atmo may be true but that does not prove warming is man made.
3)Science is full of academic liars who will think, say and do whatever the money tells them to. This is not just science. Look at how 50 supposedly good FBI agents signed a letter saying that the hunter biden laptop was Russian disinformation even though anyone with a brain could follow the paper trail from the original whistle blower at the repair shop and know it was actually hunter’s lap top. Bottom line, government people saying things is more likely to be a lie than anything else. They are self serving, not servants of the people.
4) Let’s say it is caused by man. If the US makes everyone live small thinking we will hunker down and it will pass us by while China, India and Africa all burn coal up the wazoo, how will it ever changed?
5) Anything that results in more tax revenue for the Satanic government is evil, and doubly so if it simultaneously removes rights and privacy from the people in the offing.
6) Military is creating untold carbon. Eliminate the military and all private elite jets and then let’s talk.
I am fed up with the globalist elite and their double standard. If they want me to do any of what they are asking, let them come to my door and try to make me.
Greet them with 12ga double barrel
“Science is full of academic liars who will think, say and do whatever the money tells them to.”
Right ON! Just like the MSM, there’s a lot of money to be made in climate change, race wars, election interference, TDS, etc.
Personally, I believe humans are having an effect on climate, but China isn’t going to do their part when it comes to power generation. They’ll be building coal plants for years to come, and it will take them at least 50 years to decommission all of them. They are on a better footing when it comes to nuclear in general and especially gen 4 fission plants. But, I think companies like Helion Energy will get to fusion first.
Obama’s plan being carried out by Kerry is a race to the bottom. These idiots can’t even figure out that BEVs, in general, are still ahead of their time and that hybrids are a much better choice today. Just a bunch of village idiots.
Another great post, Captain!
Climate change is perfectly natural, Ice ages come and go all the time and throwing money in the government toilet is just plain foolish…
Climate does change. Always has. Convincing people that we are the cause of it or that any amount of money can change this is the biggest con every propogated on the earth in history, and the Climate Change pimps like Geta and the former VP under Clinton and John “Why The Long Face?” Kerry are running this con for money, lots and lots of money. It’s a con. If you don’t see that, then you’re the sucker.
No…its a scam
it is indeed a scam. Since covid, I have realized that the following is true.
Whenever governments around the world are pushing a narrative that will:
1) Give them more control over the people, and
2) Give them an excuse to raise taxes and/or steal land from the people,
they are LYING!
Some may be inclined to say that your two conditions are superfluous —
‘Whenever governments around the world are pushing a narrative…they are LYING!’