UN Seeks $4 to 6 Trillion Per Year to Address Climate

Finance Flows from UN Report

Scaremongering Continues

The Guardian reports UN finds ‘no credible pathway to 1.5C in place’

The UN environment report analysed the gap between the CO2 cuts pledged by countries and the cuts needed to limit any rise in global temperature to 1.5C, the internationally agreed target. Progress has been “woefully inadequate” it concluded.

Current pledges for action by 2030, if delivered in full, would mean a rise in global heating of about 2.5C and catastrophic extreme weather around the world. A rise of 1C to date has caused climate disasters in countries from Pakistan to Puerto Rico.

If the long-term pledges by countries to hit net zero emissions by 2050 were delivered, global temperature would rise by 1.8C. But the glacial pace of action means meeting even this temperature limit was not credible, the UN report said.

A study published this week found “large consensus” across all published research that new oil and gas fields are “incompatible” with the 1.5C target.

What Would It Cost?

Hooray! Only $4 trillion to 6 trillion per year.

A global transformation from a heavily fossil fuel- and unsustainable land use-dependent economy to a low-carbon economy is expected to require investments of at least US$4–6 trillion a year,” stated the UN report (page 26 of 132).

Q: US$4–6 trillion a year for how many years?
A: Based on figure ES.6 (lead chart) least eight years.

Q: What Percent of GDP?
A: 4 to 9 percent for developing countries, and 2 to 4 percent for developed countries.

And developing countries will gladly fork over up to 9 percent of GDP every year for eight years.

Yeah, right. 

Meanwhile, the EU is burning more trees and coal. Burning trees is magically deemed environmentally neutral. 

What a hoot.  

Exploring the Massive Clean Energy Boondoggle of Burning Trees as Carbon Neutral

Please consider Exploring the Massive Clean Energy Boondoggle of Burning Trees as Carbon Neutral

To the shock of everyone with any semblance of common sense, we are clearcutting forests and burning the trees based on the idea the process is carbon neutral.

26 of France’s 56 Nuclear Reactors are Offline for Pipe Corrosion or Maintenance

Also note 26 of France’s 56 Nuclear Reactors are Offline for Pipe Corrosion or Maintenance

Gear up for a cold Winter in France. The protests have started already.

This post originated at MishTalk.Com

Please Subscribe!

Like these reports? I hope so, and if you do, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

If you have subscribed and do not get email alerts, please check your spam folder.

Mish 

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Comments to this post are now closed.

98 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Counter
Counter
3 years ago
Helping means go backwards I think
Bill Gates says rich countries must drive climate change innovation
PUBLISHED TUE, OCT 18 20221:00 PM EDTUPDATED TUE, OCT 18 20226:07 PM EDT
Wealthy Nations Must Support Africa in the Face of Famine and Climate Change, Says Bill Gates
Time BY ARYN BAKER
SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 9:36 AM EDT
How big corporations and Bill Gates took over the UN food Summit
(Posted Sep 27, 2021)

This September 23, the United Nations holds its Food Systems Summit in New York.

Under the guise of the UN system, and despite sleight-of-hand language about “equal opportunities,” this summit represents a hostile takeover of world governance by corporate forces and the billionaire elite.

Today, social movements are standing up for democracy and against big capital’s devastation of their lands, farms, and communities.

The United Nations is based on the idea of multilateralism, where states seek peaceful solutions on the basis of equality and respect, replacing the colonialist institutions that preceded it.

That’s why for decades, the United States government has instead pushed for things like G-7, NATO, and other forms of control over geopolitics.

As far-right governments have pulled back from multilateral institutions like the UN and the WHO, corporate actors have been moving in.

The World Economic Forum and its president Klaus Schwab have silently pushed forward the “Davos Agenda”, now re-packaged as the “Great Reset”, a vast proposal replacing traditional multilateral institutions with secretive, unaccountable bodies run by corporations and the wealthy elite.

Their “multi-stakeholder capitalism” model is based on the idea that public institutions are, by nature, inefficient.

During the neoliberal shock therapy of the 1990s, the World Economic Forum pushed the idea that corporations are more than just profit-seeking vehicles, that they could be socially responsible.

Now Davos would argue that transnational corporations are social actors, which need to be included to make decision-making truly democratic.

In doing so, Davos hijacked the gains of decades of work by popular movements to open up world governance to the demands of civil society – and did so using corporate doublespeak to further entrench elite power.

Gunboat philanthropy

La Vía Campesina is possibly the world’s largest social movement. Made up of 200 million small farmers, peasants, farm workers, and indigenous peoples, it has popularized the idea of food sovereignty as the right of peoples to control and defend their own food systems using healthy, agro-ecological methods.

After years battling against free-trade agreements and the World Bank in the streets of Seattle, Cancun, and Seoul, La Via Campesina made an incursion into institutional politics, helping to draft and carry the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants through 18 years of negotiations, until it was passed by the UN General Assembly in December 2018.

This declaration protects the right of rural people to access land, water, seeds, and other resources in order to produce their own food and that of their society.

Worldwide, 70% of food is produced by small farmers, who use only one-quarter of total farmland.

Meanwhile, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation created the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, or AGRA, in 2006.

AGRA promised to double yields and incomes for 30 million families while cutting food insecurity by half in 13 African countries by 2020.

Over the ensuing decade, AGRA collected nearly $1 billion in donations, and spent $524 million on programs promoting the use of genetically modified and hybrid seeds, commercial fossil fuel-based fertilizers, and chemical pesticides.

As a formidable corporate lobby, AGRA pushed governments in Africa into contributing another billion dollars annually to subsidize agrichemicals and imported seeds sourced from U.S. and European agribusiness corporations, as well as policies to privatize communal lands and reduce taxes on corporations.

After 14 years of mega-philanthropy’s knee on the neck of Africa, a 2020 Tufts University study showed that, in AGRA’s 13 focus countries, hunger had jumped 30%, as farmers were pushed to abandon nutritious, traditional polycultures to focus on monoculture fields of imported corn seed.

Gates Foundation prods UN, honors inspiration as Goalkeepers
By THALIA BEATY September 21, 2022
NEW YORK (AP) — Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates combined characteristic optimism with sobering questions about persistent gender inequality and hunger at an event focused on reaching global development goals that the Gateses’ foundation convened on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.

Bill Gates again made the case for investments in agricultural technologies — like modified seeds that are drought resistant — to address food insecurity. But the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also announced Wednesday a $100 million donation meant to respond to hunger and malnutrition more quickly. The donation will fund projects like a private sector partnership to subsidize fertilizer for African farmers, as well as other initiatives.

WEF
WEF As co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Bill Gates shapes and approves foundation strategies, advocates for the foundation’s issues, and sets the organization’s overall direction. He works with grantees and partners to further the foundation’s goal of improving equity in the United States and around the world.
Webej
Webej
3 years ago
These investment costs are of course not calibrated to exponential price rises for scarce metals…
A more interesting metric for the greenies is:
How many lives will it cost?
There is a direct link between poverty/life expectancy, it can be expressed relatively precisely in different regions/countries.
xbizo
xbizo
3 years ago
France made big investments in nuclear over the last 20 years and now generates 70% of its power without fossil fuels. Building 14 more reactors starting in 2028. China building 150 reactors through 2035. Do the math. it’s the only way forward. it would be nice that the climate people became serious about the proper solution.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  xbizo

Sounds like the Chinese and the French are some of the “climate people”. They recognize that the world must transition from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewables.

In addition to nuclear, China is building more renewables than anyone else in the world:

But this transition will take decades. In the interim, China is still building coal, oil and gas generation plants because they need more energy now. They may be be able to begin to reduce coal generation in a few years time, but that remains to be seen.
The world is still in the middle of a multi decade transition away from fossil fuels. And oil and gas firms remain a good investment as prices will be going up.
FromBrussels2
FromBrussels2
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
We got it… again;… Zardoz , realist, Jack etc….
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
like the global war on terror. this is a great and magnificent scam. not quite as good as the privately owned FED RES BANK OF NY. but a great grifter move none the less. the amerikan middlebrow will be most likely fleeced the most. they are a great and dumbed down flock of pigeons……….gonna be fun to make dough on this scam in trading fx and equity and debt……..
FromBrussels2
FromBrussels2
3 years ago
Only ONE climate change related certainty : Deep State and other corrupt cronies are gonna get even richer ….
GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest
3 years ago
Greenflation will just add on top all the other unfunded government programs. The printing must continue!
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
And you are profiting from it right? Or are you just complaining?
GruesomeHarvest
GruesomeHarvest
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Gee PapaDave, Are those the only two choices: profiting or complaining? How about just pointing out the obvious.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
So you’re just complaining. Okay.
Quagmire46
Quagmire46
3 years ago
Does no one else get tired of being maumaued over any number of supposed crises?
The governments beat that drum and the populace allow the governments to transfer wealth from citizens to government entities.
Lather, rinse, repeat. End result is we, the people, get poorer and governments get more powerful.
It used to be “It’s for the children.” Now “It’s for the climate.”
Balderdash!
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  Quagmire46
And what are you going to do about it? Oh yeah; complain.
How about you pay attention to what is actually happening and invest accordingly to become wealthy?
In spite of your complaints, there is a worldwide energy transition that has been going on for two decades and has another 2 decades to go. This transition is resulting in constrained supplies of oil and gas for the rest of this decade. Oil and gas prices will continue to face upward pressures for many years and the oil and gas companies are going to make a lot of money.
This was all explained by some very insightful commenters on this blog several years ago. Though it seems as if I was one of the very few who paid attention and have profited handsomely already.
It seems most people here prefer to spend their time complaining rather than getting rich from what they see happening.
BDR45
BDR45
3 years ago
Modern day witch hunt. The witches are fossil fuels.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
One of the worlds largest current sources of electricity is hydro electric from dams. It generates more electricity worldwide than nuclear, or wind and solar combined. But all over the world, this normally reliable source of renewable electricity is in trouble from drought and dried up rivers. Whether its 3 gorges in China, Lake Powell and Meade and other US locations, Europe, Canada, South America etc; many rivers are drying up. Power generation is decreasing. Yet another consequence of global warming.
So we need more oil and gas to make up the difference.
Some people expect the US can produce a lot more oil and gas to help make up the difference. They are wrong. The technological achievement of fracking is beginning to fade in the US. Fields are beginning to decline at faster rates and new wells are yielding lower flows. The best locations are all tapped and we are looking at less desirable locations now. If you follow the info from recent results, you can see that US production is unlikely to grow by much over the rest of this decade. And what little growth we achieve will come at higher costs. Which is another reason that oil companies are reluctant to spend too much now to expand production.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Well said. In particular this line:
“The best locations are all tapped and we are looking at less desirable locations now.”
Can also be applied to solar and wind too. The best places already have wind/solar on them. The next places to get wind/solar won’t be as good as the ones we have now and that trend will continue.
Nuclear is the only viable path forward if we want to get off Oil/Gas in a meaningful way.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Disagree on wind and solar locations. More than enough locations to satisfy the entire planets energy demands. But its going to take one or two decades to build them out and the accompanying infrastructure.
Same for nuclear. All alternatives to oil and gas will take a long time to build.
In the meantime, expect demand for oil and gas to keep rising vs constricted supply. It is going to take much higher oil and gas prices to crimp demand.
So oil and gas companies will keep gushing cash.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
100% correct. will take decades. and it will most likely be done. wind, wave, solar and nukes power will be built out around the globe. we used to burn wood then coal, then whale oil. then you know the rest………..
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  vanderlyn
Yep. Its not that hard to follow what is going on and profit from it. Yet so many here want to deny that global warming even exists, or that its a problem. They would rather complain about the trillions that are being spent on the energy transition, than get wealthy from those trillions.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
I disagree.
There is a reason all the Wind Farms are in West Texas. That’s where the strongest winds blow the most days of the year. Yes, you can build wind farms elsewhere but they won’t generate as much power as the ones in West Texas. That means the return of energy compared to cost of building (including CO2 cost) takes longer to recoup. This is similar to how we now frack for oil instead of just drill, because all the easy oil is gone and now what’s left is harder to get and costs more to obtain.
Obviously as an investor I know you understand all that stuff. My point is simply that we aren’t going to get anywhere NEAR what we need energy wise from Solar and Wind because it will be impossible to build that many wind mills and solar panels (neither of which can be recycled once their lifespan of a decade or two is up) and transmission lines.
Here’s a couple of fun 5 minute reads about resources needed for renewables like solar/wind. We aren’t likely to get anywhere near what we need.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
Then I agree to disagree. Lol!
The best part is that if you are right, I am going to make even more money, because the transition will take longer than the current 2 to 3 decade estimate. And we will need oil and gas much longer.
The bad part is that global warming will get worse.
As always, there is nothing I can do about it except make money.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
So, let me get this right… We should spend more to make the problem (global whatever) worse?
It makes more sense to ‘globalize’ all the earth’s oil and gas, since it is a) running out, and b) contributing to global whatever.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
I never say what “we” SHOULD do. Because I have no say over that. I merely react to what “we” ARE doing. Which is transitioning from oil and gas to renewables.
You, on the other hand, just stated what we SHOULD do. Too bad you don’t get to rule the world and implement your ideas.
And who exactly is “we”? There is no “we”. Instead, there are a huge number of disparate decision makers all over the world who make decisions in the best interest of the entity they work for.
And I am not one of the people in charge of governments, corporations, or organizations that make the decisions that impact what happens on the planet.
I do not run all the different oil and gas companies. But those that do, recognize the energy transition that will continue for another few decades, and are planning accordingly. Which is why they have reduced capex spending for many years now, and have no plans to rapidly expand capex in the future. (You can follow these oil execs and see what they are saying.) Why spend a lot of money to find oil and gas that might not be needed in 20 years time? Especially if you already have more than 20 years of reserves. Why build a new refinery that takes 40 years to pay back your investment if it might not be needed in 20 years?
But, as foretold here several years ago, worldwide demand for energy is going to continue to rise. And we will not build renewables fast enough to meet that demand. Which means there will be more demand for oil and gas at the same time that oil and gas companies are reducing capex. Which means constrained supply, higher prices and greater returns to shareholders of those companies.
Of course, higher prices for oil and gas will eventually reduce demand to match the constrained supply. That price is heavily debated by many, but it is always over $100 WTI. At $100 WTI, most oil companies I own will return 30% free cash flow to shareholders. Add another 5% for each additional $10 increase in WTI. So 40% FCF at $120. 50% FCF at $140.
This is what I am always talking about. How to profit from what is actually happening. Not what “we”, or the world, should do. That’s a waste of time.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
DAMN STRAIGHT PAPA. thanks for your insights and expertise and investment ideas……….
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  vanderlyn
Thanks vanderlyn. And my thanks go out to those who came before me and laid out this scenario. In response to their selfless help, I have spent the last few years researching and learning as much as I can in the free time I have to be able to profit from this scenario. I hope that others here will be able to profit as well. Best of luck with your investments.
Felix_Mish
Felix_Mish
3 years ago
I gather that country governments are to pay these trillions of $, but who gets the dough? And, can we assume that people such as work for the UN will get a hefty cut?
Calling some of this reallocation of resources “investments” reminds me of an old BMW commercial touting “investing” in a new BMW.
Global warming is a real investment. The “globe” is gonna change. Want it to change to colder or warmer? I’ll take warmer. In fact, the world is, right now, clearly too cold, as shown by Canada and Russia. And, as the living world is always under threat from an asteroid hit, so too is it under threat of glaciation.
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
Reply to  Felix_Mish
“I gather that country governments are to pay these trillions of $, but who gets the dough?”
I’d ask you to read my rough price breakdown below, but then, our government promised us global trade was going to pass on the cost savings to consumers and make up for jobs lost, when in fact the savings were used to increase C-suite bonuses and share buy-backs.
Solar and wind are cheaper, but then who knows, future green energy exec’s could lobby Congress for the “value” of doubling their rates because it’ll “trickle down”.. or… something.
.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  Felix_Mish
Russia is getting far too warm already. The permafrost is melting, and the northern tundra and forests have been burning up the last few years. As the permafrost melts it is adding large amounts of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, which further contributes to global warming. It is a costly, vicious cycle.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
“Russia is getting far too warm already”
?????
Have you been there in the winter?
You should perhaps try your hand selling winter vacation packages to colder places ( like, eh, Antarctica…) to Siberians…..
I know “data driven” has degenerated into little more than the latest buzzword for the hopelessly stupid and gullible over the past decade. But still:
When all observations reveal that a massive overweight of all life forms, from plants to humans, choose to overwhelmingly concentrate in the warmest regions of a planet: To then conclude that the problem the planet faces is that it is “too warm”, is pretty much the definition of clueless.
While going further still; to the point of concluding that not only the planet as a whole, but indeed the coldest spots on the planet, is still “too warm”, is not just clueless. But in fact plain, cuckoo crazy.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  StukiMoi
AC was probably the single biggest invention that changed man’s living locations in past century. of course sailing ships……….and other things pre date this and did quite a number on our species too. in a good way. i’m bullish on mankind and future of earth. one has to be if one understands anthropology and our long term history.
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
I first started to worry about climate change when watching Science channel’s “What on Earth” a few years ago, where satellite footage of global anomalies are featured and then explained.
A few years ago, they compared old photo’s to new after spotting “boiling” lakes in Siberia, they investigated in person to discover it was methane melting, giving the lakes a “boiling” appearance.
Methane is an exponentially more potent greenhouse gas than CO, and it’s starting to release from permafrost, and the bottom of oceans, lakes now.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  MarkraD
Yeah. We are probably screwed over the next century to pass some tipping points and really do some serious damage to our ability to survive. But we are clever and adaptable. I suspect mankind will survive as a species, but in smaller numbers than today.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Reply to  Felix_Mish
The kicker is the two biggest contributors to greenhouse gases are 1) water vapor and 2) carbon dioxide.
Since they are essential to plant life, one would expect the higher the level, the better. Lower levels would indicate a dying planet. In fact, the planeet is at a CO2 minimum level (over manyy millions of years)–all that carbon in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere.
Interestingly, commercial greenhouses use water vapor and CO2 to increase productivity.
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
Maybe my numbers are off, but for an 8 year startup cost of $6 Trillion / year:
Global GDP = $96 Trillion
Global energy cost = 13% of GDP = $12 Trillion
Wind/Solar cost = $46/MW
Gas & Coal cost = $80 & $75/MW (respectively)
Cost difference = -65%
65% of 12 T = $7.8 Trillion saved globally per year
I don’t need to hug a tree to see value there, even if my numbers are off.
.
toadtheoiledsproket
toadtheoiledsproket
3 years ago
Reply to  MarkraD
the costs of Wind and Solar are underestimated. The land based wind farms on average generate maximal rated output only 40% of the time. A gas turbine rated 100MW always generates a 100MW. Solar needs backup and there is no economic way to do so. Li/Ni/CO batteries are increasing in cost (Li-carbonate the major cost) up 140% this year.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Calculating the costs, while important, is not a big deal in the long run. Higher costs simply mean a slower transition to renewables. But the transition will continue, because the world needs to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels.
I don’t mind a longer, slower transition. It just means more demand for oil and gas, higher prices for oil and gas and greater profits to shareholders of oil and gas companies for a longer period of time.
As always, I can’t change what is happening, but I can profit from it.
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
No debate, solar and wind are more periodic, but the cost savings per MW are real, which, to Mish’s article makes it seem that the $6 Tril per year for 8 years has no return.
As to Solar though, I suggest Googling Concentrated Solar, there are many now up and running that supply electric 24 hours by storing heat overnight.
Farmers across the Midwest are now supplementing their revenues with windmills, that $6 Tril investment isn’t just wasted money.
Coal, gas and oil cost money, sun and wind don’t.
.
Siliconguy
Siliconguy
3 years ago
Reply to  MarkraD
Don’t confuse nameplate power with real energy output.
Bonneville Power Administration has a nice plot of wind power from its collection of wind farms, a total of 2827 MW by nameplate.
There is also a spreadsheet with data taken at 5 minute intervals.
From that a bit of math shows that the best month so far this year is May with an average power of 34.7% of nameplate. The median power output was 29.7%. 6.4% of the time the wind turbines produced less than 1% of nameplate.
January was a disaster. Average power was 14.5% of rating, Median was 2.4%, and that was because 40.1% of the time there was no wind, (power less than 1% of nameplate).
So the question is really do you save enough coal/natural gas to justify the cost of the wind turbines? And if you intend to use batteries to get by they had better be big.
I started on this data exercise after a nine day run of dead calm, followed by a day of wind, followed by another eight days of dead calm. I’m not optimistic about October’s numbers.
Solar does better here in the summer. The problem in the winter is 8.5 hours of daylight and heavy over cast. The little solar panel on the tank level transmitter puts out 1/14 of its summertime output. Take a 300 W PV panel for 8.5 hours (7.5 to account for horizon clutter) divide by 14, and see how many it will take to run the heat pump for 24 hours. The temperature inversions that bring the overcast often last a week.
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
Reply to  Siliconguy
Excellent info off that site, thank you.
“So the question is really do you save enough coal/natural gas to justify the cost of the wind turbines?”
I viewed your site, one problem is it doesn’t break down the components of “VER”, is it solar, wind, what percent of each?
You’re in the Northwest, solar would be dramatically different in, say, an Arizona desert, as with wind.
I fully understand your point on “nameplate”, max output, and to my original point on Mish’s 8 year timeline, there would be an ROI even if it only saved 10% off fossil’s.
You have to factor the resulting lower market price of coal, gas and oil from diminished demand, assume we can double our current 11% consumption ratio of alt energy in those 8 years, that’s a 10% reduction in fossil demand, a resulting 10% drop in market price in total energy cost.
I did not account for that in my first response.
.
.
.
Felix_Mish
Felix_Mish
3 years ago
Reply to  Siliconguy
You in the east gorge area?
I love those wind towers when I roll through the area. Stately. And, like inside a dam powerhouse, they give the feeling of something that would still be humming in a Hollywood no-people world.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Reply to  MarkraD
If this is true, then the UN will not need $4-6 trillion dollars for infrastructure etc. Instead they can fund it over 8 years from the savings from reduced gas and coal, and put the remaining two+/- trillion per year into other boondoggles.
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
It takes money to build them, but yes, once up and running these things will have an ROI, maybe less than my numbers, but they’ll also diminish our dependency on third world despots.
Avery
Avery
3 years ago
Step 1: dismantle the UN
Step 2: use it for kindling
BlauGloriole
BlauGloriole
3 years ago
Read Co2coalition.org plus many other very credible sites….learn that co2 is essential for life and its effect on temperature is not only minor but diminishes with increases in density.
“Climate Change” is another scam to steal wealth and increase centralized control. Its has all the fear propaganda and tyranical control features akin to the institutional response to Covid.
Unfortunately we live in terrible times where normal authority in various disciplines cannot be trusted. One has to educate oneself much more than in the past.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  BlauGloriole
“One has to educate oneself much more than in the past.”
Lol! Too bad you haven’t.
HippyDippy
HippyDippy
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave

Its been an obvious fraud from the beginning. All the scientists who worked on that initial global warming scam report from the United Nations all resigned to embark on a global campaign to expose it. Just one of many examples of why you can’t free a slave. They love their ignorance far too much to let go of their chains.

PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  HippyDippy
Lol! Thats so funny. How can you possibly be that stupid?
Scientists have known that manmade CO2 and other greenhouse gasses would warm our atmosphere since the 1800s.
HippyDippy
HippyDippy
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
So all the scientists that compiled that report in the early 2000s were idiots for claiming it was a fraud? Or wikileaks 2012 exposure of their emails detailing how they rigged the findings was also stupid? There are far too many instances which prove it a scam beyond doubt for any thinking person to swallow. But all who question the state are idiots in your opinion. That tells me a lot more about you than it does me.
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Most people imply that high voltage electricity will kill me, but I read a report that those people work for the electric company and are scamming me to keep me from bootlegging off high voltage power lines.
You’re arguing with a nut job.
.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  MarkraD
No kidding. I’m done wasting time on him. Got more important things to do.
HippyDippy
HippyDippy
3 years ago
Reply to  MarkraD
Yep. Cuz government knows best. But I’m arguing with absolute morons, so I’ll just hit ignore and be relieved of having to deal with childish minds.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Reply to  MarkraD
Doesn’t everyone know that high current electricity creates an electromagnetic field? Admittedly, the field from electric cables is on the low end of the spectrum, but some caution would be prudent given the risk.
“Electric and magnetic fields are invisible areas of energy (also
called radiation) that are produced by electricity, which is the
movement of electrons, or current, through a wire.

An electric field is produced by voltage, which is the pressure used
to push the electrons through the wire, much like water being pushed
through a pipe. As the voltage increases, the electric field increases
in strength. Electric fields are measured in volts per meter (V/m).

A magnetic field results from the flow of current through wires or
electrical devices and increases in strength as the current increases.
The strength of a magnetic field decreases rapidly with increasing
distance from its source. Magnetic fields are measured in microteslas
(μT, or millionths of a tesla).” (from above source)

“Exposure from power lines. Although a study in 1979 pointed to a possible association between living near electric power lines and childhood leukemia (16), more recent studies have had mixed findings (17–25).
Most of these studies did not find an association or found one only for
those children who lived in homes with very high levels of magnetic
fields, which are present in few residences.”
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Reply to  HippyDippy
I am not sure about your slave comment. However, it would be fair to say… Slavery cannot be destroyed, merely changed in form. The current form is ‘taxation slave.’ Next up is ‘social credit slave’–see China for example
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
It was not long ago that scientists were saying the planet was going into another Ice Age. Gotta wonder about credibility.
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
3 years ago
Reply to  BlauGloriole
You don’t overpopulate the earth, deforest its woodlands, and dig up close to a cubic mile of oil each year, much of which goes up as that essential for life CO2, and not have a negative impact on the climate. The key, of course, is figuring out how to move quickly without cratering out economy.
BlauGloriole
BlauGloriole
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
Yes a lot of wonton abuse of the land has occurred. Yes even if one believes human activity is causing significant adverse climate changes one needs to plan the transition, thank you for acknowledging this.
However CO2 is not the problem checkout https://co2coalition.org/facts/
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
Reply to  BlauGloriole
“However CO2 is not the problem checkout https://co2coalition.org/facts/
You’re linking to an oil lobbyist, funded by oil companies.
“The organization been funded by energy industry firms and conservative activists who oppose climate change mitigation policies, such as the Mercer Family Foundation and Koch brothers.”
BlauGloriole
BlauGloriole
3 years ago
Reply to  MarkraD
Read the results of the work and challenge that. All research is funded by someone and everyone has an agenda even the government.
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
Reply to  BlauGloriole
That’s my point, anyone can cherry pick data for a desired result, for this reason I check the source first.
In this case the source is Koch brothers, who stand to lose their livelihood.
Koch’s need to invest into alts, instead they stick with spending billions “influencing”, using biased “data” because this is all they know.
They’re a repeat of Big tobacco’s strategy, and it no longer works, no, smoking isn’t healthy, yes, it does cause cancer.
.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Reply to  BlauGloriole
The underlying assumption of climate crazies is that any change in climate is a disaster. That said, they want you to hand over 10+/- % of the approx $24 trillion US GDP for 8 years as your fair share of at least $4-6 trillion. WITH NO GUARANTIES!
Let’s accept that premise. I propose that seeing as oil, gas, and coal caused the problem, those resources should be globalized , with the profits used to reduce carbon….
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
Reply to  BlauGloriole
Co2 is definitely essential for life, but not if it’s a desert, we have a global crop shortages this year from droughts, the Mississippi is so dried up freight barges can’t travel.
BlauGloriole
BlauGloriole
3 years ago
Reply to  MarkraD
Your assumption is that CO2 is causing the drought+++.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  BlauGloriole
Your assumptions are both incorrect and unimportant.

The earth is warming up. Every scientist who hasn’t been bought off as a shill will tell you that the primary cause is GHGs, and that CO2 is the main culprit. Though CH4 is no slouch either.

Governments (national, regional, local) all over the world (including China) understand this and are trying (with minimal success) to do something about it. They wouldn’t be spending trillions on renewables and mitigation efforts if it wasn’t a problem.

Corporations, businesses, and organizations, large and small, all over the world, recognize the problem and are attempting to become part of the solution. They will also be spending trillions over the next decades to help solve the problem.

And here you are, along with a small number of other idiots saying that CO2 is not a problem or the cause of anthropogenic global warming. It is both funny and sad. But then, it doesn’t really matter what you think.

The important thing is that what you, and others like you, think is irrelevant. Because you are not one of the decision makers in government, business etc who recognize the actual problem and are implementing plans to do something about it.

Similarly, I cannot do anything about the problem, or what the decision makers all over the world are doing about the problem. All I can do is recognize that the problem exists, and that the decision makers will indeed be implementing their plans.

I can then invest accordingly and become extremely wealthy from my understanding of this problem and the worlds response to it, while you continue to deny that the problem even exists.

Please let me know when someone puts you in charge of the world governments and corporations and you start to implement “your” policies. Then, as an investor, I will pay attention.

Till then, you remain a fool, being duped by others.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
i like your style. so true. i have watched CSPAN for decades as the boys and girls in world wide governments swing around tens of trillions of shekels, instead of the little CEOs shilling for their little companies on CNBC and bloomberg………..just talking about millions or billions……………i follow the money, for profits. my personal preference is peace and prosperity for all. i’m a classical liberal / libertarian when i vote in USA and EU. yes. it’s legal and righteous. but alas my personal preferences really don’t matter. the classical liberals like me have no seat at the table. we can’t even serve the tea to Xi or pour the wine…….. to us senators………
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  vanderlyn
Follow the money. Invest accordingly. Wise words.
KidHorn
KidHorn
3 years ago
Reply to  BlauGloriole
It’s a persistent la nina weather pattern.
8dots
8dots
3 years ago
US and European energy co, ex one, exited Russia, leaving large portions of their portfolio to Putin, who sell oil at a discount.
Putin cut production of natgas.
shamrock
shamrock
3 years ago
European natural gas storage are completely full and prices have dropped by 70% since the peak in August. They should be fine this year.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  shamrock
Lets hope so. They ordered as much LNG as they could get their hands on. Too bad they don’t have more storage capacity as the ships are backed up now waiting for a place to offload it. Perhaps they will build more storage soon.
Of course, this shows that Europe should be able be able to completely get off Russian natgas.
Next is oil.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  shamrock
You do understand that they don’t run off storage all winter. The storage is just the extra amount they need ON TOP of what they get from Russia (or elsewhere now that Russia isn’t supplying any gas).
In other words, Russian pipelines supplied say 2 million BTU a day. In the winter, Europe needs 3 million so it needs to store 1 million a day to make up for the fact the pipelines can only carry 2 million max. They do that because in the summer they only need 1 million a day so the extra 1 million can be stored for the winter.
So Europe still needs plenty of gas to get though the winter.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
I have pointed out the same thing before. Total gas storage capacity in Europe is roughly equal to 25% of annual use. For example, Germany has storage capacity equal to about 80-90 days usage.
However, given that a lot of LNG tankers are parked offshore waiting to offload because storage is full, means that Europe should probably get through this winter without massive disruptions. And next year they should be able to add more storage capacity, more LNG terminals, and improve logistics to prevent a backup of ships.
No more Russian gas .
MarkraD
MarkraD
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Great point, thanks for checking the math on storage, it also bears mention the EU is having a mild winter.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
I’m wondering who is paying the daily demurrage fees for these offshore LNG tankers.
Profits can turn quickly into losses.
Of course you can always raise the price.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
Its costing someone a lot. And they cannot raise the price. As you know when dealing with commodities, you are a price taker, not a price maker. That’s why European LNG prices just crumbled. The people paying the fees are desperate to sell their cargoes. Much like what happened early on in the pandemic. The world shut down for several months and demand for oil dropped precipitously. Oil was still being pumped daily, and quickly filled up all the available storage. Those who held contracts for the oil still being pumped, suddenly had no place to sell or store their oil, but had committed to taking delivery. Where are you going to put that oil? You can’t store it in your backyard. So they were forced to pay others to take the oil off their hands, resulting in negative prices. European gas is in a similar situation. Temporary of course. Once cold weather hits and demand increases, the ships holding all that LNG will get offloaded.
Maximus_Minimus
Maximus_Minimus
3 years ago
In related news, you can save as much if you cut the UN out the deal.
Wherever the UN opens office, it amounts to an economic revival program.
The headquarters of the agencies are invariably in the most expensive neighborhoods of the world even though the staff is diversified. One wonders why?
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Yep. Its a catch-22. What are the long term trends? The world has been needing more energy every year for 2 centuries now. Our livelihoods and prosperity requires it. The vast majority of that energy comes from fossil fuels; and it is still today over 80% fossil fuels. Even with the attempted energy transition for the last several decades we are still consuming more energy every year than we are adding in renewables. So we are still demanding even more fossil fuels.
Yet our use of those fossil fuels (along with other human activities) are pumping large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and warming up the planet. The effects of this global warming are already costing us a lot economically. Over the next few hundred years, we may make the earth a very difficult place for mankind to survive. (I feel badly for my children and grandchildren who will be impacted far more than I ever will.)
Which is the reason for the attempted energy transition and a whole host of other measures that we are attempting to try to slow and then reverse global warming.
Unfortunately, we are not doing a very good job of slowing the GHG emissions. GHG levels keep rising. And so do temperatures.
As I always say, there is nothing I can do to change what is happening. However, I can recognize that it is happening, and then do whatever I can to lessen the impact on myself, and to profit from the opportunities that present themselves.
For now; I intend to profit from the oil and gas companies who are gushing cash flow from the current and future high prices for their products.
I am slowly adding to positions in renewable and hydrogen companies as I expect the governments to begin to heavily incentivize them as the climate crisis worsens.
I am looking at different places in the world to live, where I can safely live and be minimally impacted by climate change.
I am building my wealth in order to increase my options.
I will leave it to others to do all the useless complaining.
Like those here who say that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax and we should ignore it.
Or those who criticize government for both action, and inaction on this topic. Now that is truly a hoot.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
“I am looking at different places in the world to live, where I can safely live and be minimally impacted by climate change.”
Try being a step ahead instead. “Climate change” isn’t meaningfully going to impact any neighbourhood where people commenting on Mish’ blog lives directly. Higher prices for energy and all else will, though. As in: People get poorer. Hence more willing to accept “real” pollution (PM2.5, PM10, Ozone, NoX….) in exchange for retaining/regaining some of the trappings of their former “wealth.” Clean air and water, beyond some rather sad (by first world standards) minima; is largely a luxury. And people make choices accordingly.
IOW: Worry about the real threats to life quality: pollution. Not weird stuff like the water level rising a few inches to a foot. The people screwed enough to possibly be impacted by the latter, are largely also too screwed to be reading this blog.
BlauGloriole
BlauGloriole
3 years ago
Reply to  StukiMoi
Not only is water levels rising not a problem neither is co2 a problem. Actually Co2 is a benefit. There are other pollutants that can be scrubbed out. This whole ESG effort is a scam to steal and to control.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  BlauGloriole
“Actually Co2 is a benefit.”
Actually, it’s neither good nor bad. Like most things. Life is flexible. It adapts to more X, and to less X. For pretty much any X. Very little truly matter all that much. Ocean boiling comets and meteors; and possibly 10K nuclear warheads set off simultaneously may be exceptions. Beyond that, it’s largely about t-shirts vs fur; skiing vs surfing; and whether to live at one arbitrary latitude or another.
What IS important, is not constraining the flexibility people have to adapt. Aka; to make sure the world is maximally free: Anyone free to move and build houses and businesses wherever the heck they want, without moronic border walls nor zoning lawsnor jackbooted thugs having mindless, braindead and always self serving opinions about the lives of others, being the most obvious.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Reply to  StukiMoi
CO2 is ESSENTIAL to life on this planet. It is the basis for everything humans eat. Without it we die. Everything dies. A dead planet!
FACT: 100% of fossil fuels were once CO2 in the air and oceans. This means that the planet had a much higher CO2 level when fossil fuels were being formed, and that the level of CO2 decreased accordingly. Also, the planet was far more productive in terms of natural growth with higher CO2 levels. The earth slowly became a dying plant with vast deserts and vast frozen waste lands.
In fact, if intelligent beings colonized the Earth, likely the first thing they would do is release the captured CO2.
BTW, the other greenhouse gas (and therefore considered problematic) is water vapor–also essential for life.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
OMG.
Facts.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  StukiMoi
ocean front property living is the cleanest air, by a long shot. its’ quite nice living too.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  vanderlyn
“ocean front property living is the cleanest air,”
All else being equal, ocean front has a lot going for it.
But Victoria Harbor is still a far cry worse than both the Altai and the Antarctic interior, wrt air pollution……
I’m in The Med currently; and was suckered into buying one of those PM2.5 sensors. There’s not really any spot in nor around this entire ocean, even out in a boat in the middle of it, which has air (nor water…..) all that clean. Across the entire Med, the baseline isn’t far from LA. Windswept San Francisco, and even inland Denver/Boulder is much cleaner. Most of the interior of coalburning Russia, and frack-heavy Canada, is plenty cleaner on all but the driest and windiest of days. I venture even the interior of the Sahara is; again aside from during storms.
Where you really want to be, is on windward coasts situated in a steady wind pattern. Eastern Maui (pretty much constant wind clear across the pacific from Alaska. And Alaska/Northern Canada isn’t exactly emissions central either….); the outer/windward Caribbean islands. (As well as truly remote islands and atolls far away from everywhere, I suppose: I can’t imagine coastal Tristan da Cuhna getting all that polluted anytime soon, regardless of where it happens to be blowing from……)
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  StukiMoi
The problem with Tristan da Cuhna is that it is inhabited.
You need to shack up on some remote rock with no population.
StukiMoi
StukiMoi
3 years ago
Reply to  Lisa_Hooker
I suppose.
Islands being uninhabited, tend to be so due to a near complete lack of natural harbors to dock, though. And; building artificial ones, require populations. And generate pollution….. Either that, or Islands may be uninhabited due to the weather truly and utterly sucking. Anywhere simultaneously both nice and reachable, has already long since been reached and settled.
Besides, even somewhere as comparatively cosmopolitan as Tristan, is very much NOT included among places Amazon offers overnight prime service to. And I highly doubt changing that is particularly high on Amazon’s priority list.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
The closer to the equator the better if you want to avoid as much climate change as possible. The polar regions will change the most and the fastest. The least change and the slowest will be at the equator.
Also a lot depends on how much longer you expect to live. If you are in your 50s or later it really doesn’t matter much where you live because the change won’t be that dramatic in 20-25 years. On the other hand if you are in your 20s and may live another 50 plus it matters more where you decide to live unless you are prepared to move in 20-25 if things get bad.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
You go south to the equator if you want. I will likely go north. Or really south like New Zealand.
Life at the equator is already migrating away, both in the oceans and on land.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
I’ll be staying in Florida. Climate here won’t really change since we are next to the Ocean and it’s moderating effects will prevent extreme temperatures. We also get plenty of rain too. Only downside is the occasional hurricane.
I’ve lived North in Canada. Climate there changing and the further north (or south) you go, the faster it’s changing. Like I said, if you have 25 years left or so, it probably doesn’t make sense to move because nothing major is going to happen in such a short time frame.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
A lot depends on luck. If you live in an area that has seen heavy flooding, multiple times in the last decade or so, you might have a different opinion. Or hurricanes; tornados, wildfires, etc. I know someone who bought their future retirement home a year ago in Fort Myers. Its now gone. Bad luck.
TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Of course. Bad luck in the form of outlier events can happen at any time including dying from a heart attack or in a car crash.
Sorry to hear about your friends place. I have friends there too whose homes were damaged (but not destroyed). As long as your friend had insurance, they will be able to rebuild so as long as they don’t need the home in the next year or so they will be fine.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65
I didn’t pump them for details, but they said it was a write-off. They never even set foot in the place.
Captain Ahab
Captain Ahab
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
Good luck going to New Zealand.
Lisa_Hooker
Lisa_Hooker
3 years ago
Reply to  Captain Ahab
Papa has an immense heap of profits so he can buy his way in anywhere.
Maybe he will buy New Zealand.
worleyeoe
worleyeoe
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
PapaD, how much of those record ExxonMobil profits are they sending you in dividends?
Enough to buy a Tesla, I hope : )
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  worleyeoe
🙂 No Tesla. Yet. I don’t really need a new auto. All the oil companies I own shares in are benefiting from the supply constraints and resulting high prices. It isn’t a one quarter thing. Its a decade long thing. I am expecting free cash flows of 30%/a at $100 WTI for the remainder of this decade. That FCF will be returned to shareholders as dividends or buybacks. I am happy with either.
vanderlyn
vanderlyn
3 years ago
Reply to  PapaDave
PAPA pens another masterpiece. r/e idea for folks. coastal CA, coastal portugal and mediterranean coasts, one does NOT need heat or a/c to feel comfy for most days and nights………….if anyone here can figure out the best publicly traded way to play this, i’d be very thankful. i’m scoping out reit’s in these locations. i’ve been a real estate investor for decades and understand how to do it directly of course. thanks in advance. ps. i sold off all my r/e investment properties past 2 years in a very very nice, but very arid part of the world.
PapaDave
PapaDave
3 years ago
Reply to  vanderlyn
Well done. Congrats. I have no idea on Mediterranean real estate. Sounds like something worth looking into though. Thanks!
8dots
8dots
3 years ago
After the Indian locust were drained, Mish econ on Twitter.

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.