U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion

[Shady]

U.N. Admits That Going Green Will Cost $76 Trillion

Two years ago, U.N. researchers were claiming that it would cost “as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade” to go green. Now, a new U.N. report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.

So let's do the math: That works out to a grand total of $76 trillion, over 40 years -- or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year). It’s all part of a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution” called for in the annual report. Except that the U.N. will apparently control this next industrial revolution.

Link

Make no mistake. This is the true hidden agenda behind so-called climate change. A massive re-distrubution of wealth from developed countries to developing countires. As has already been stated. Green is the new Red. Hold on to your wallets.

[eyeball]

Okay, so the US GDP in 40 years will total around 586 trillion.

76 trillion of that is about 13% and of course that'll be spread out globally.

76 trillion seems pretty cheap actually. That's like the cost of general maintenance or something. You weren't just planning on just leaving a worn-out un-maintained piece of shit for future generations to scrape by on were you?

[TimG]

Okay, so the US GDP in 40 years will total around 586 trillion.

Where do you get 586 trillion from? With 3% growth I get $45 trillion. Global GDP would be $400 trillion (that is likely on the high side).

76 trillion seems pretty cheap actually. That's like the cost of general maintenance or something. You weren't just planning on just leaving a worn-out un-maintained piece of shit for future generations to scrape by on were you?

You forget that there is no such thing as a viable renewable power source so all of this money has to confiscated from enterprises that actually generate wealth.

[Oleg Bach]

How stupid - to make 76 trillion dollars you have to destroy a lot of natural green environment. By the time they spend the money they will be right back to where they started from. To make money you must have industry and human activity - 76 trillion will generate so much filth and waste that the only thing that will be green is enamel paint.

[eyeball]

Where do you get 586 trillion from? With 3% growth I get $45 trillion. Global GDP would be $400 trillion (that is likely on the high side).

40 years times 14.66 trillion US GDP a year is 586 trillion.

Shady didn't mention the rest of the planet's GDP by the way so the 76 trillion he's having chest-pains and diarrhea over looks even less like peanuts.

Don't the threads title, the linked news-story and post in general smack of exactly the same sort of data fudging and hysteria climate scientists and environmentalists are accused of?

You forget that there is no such thing as a viable renewable power source so all of this money has to confiscated from enterprises that actually generate wealth.

You forget or don't realize that much of the natural capital of the planet that underwrites our economy's ability to generate wealth has already been confiscated by our enterprises to date.

You forget that we don't have four or five other Earth's in the bank.

[Bonam]

$76 trillion is not peanuts. Regardless of the % of global GDP that $76 trillion represents over the next 40 years, for that price and timeframe we could colonize Mars instead.

[dre]

$76 trillion is not peanuts. Regardless of the % of global GDP that $76 trillion represents over the next 40 years, for that price and timeframe we could colonize Mars instead.

It completely depends on what "going green" means. If that means a complete revamp of the energy sector then it doesnt seem all that unreasonable. Its definately the biggest and most expensive project we have ever attempted, and it will probably take most of this century to finish.

[eyeball]

$76 trillion is not peanuts. Regardless of the % of global GDP that $76 trillion represents over the next 40 years, for that price and timeframe we could colonize Mars instead.

The % like I said seems reasonable when thinking in terms of operating and maintenance costs. I think of Earth as being like a boat that I rely for my livelihood (there's that fishery/canary-in-a-coal-mine thing again). In my experience as a fisherman putting 12 - 13% of the gross back into the boat sounds like a pretty damned good deal actually.

You'd have to put at least that much back just to keep making a living never mind finance the new one you plan to buy down the road.

Presumably you plan on just driving this planet till it breaks while living high on the hog and then jumping ship for Mars when the bills come due. Good luck with that.

[Bonam]

It completely depends on what "going green" means. If that means a complete revamp of the energy sector then it doesnt seem all that unreasonable. Its definately the biggest and most expensive project we have ever attempted, and it will probably take most of this century to finish.

A "revamp" of the energy sector is something I see more as an opportunity for economic growth than as a pure expense, especially if it is allowed to happen organically via the private sector.

[cybercoma]

Too much money. Bah. Let some other generation deal with it. We're not going to be around to deal with the fallout.

[Shady]

Too much money. Bah. Let some other generation deal with it. We're not going to be around to deal with the fallout.

Yeah, the fallout from what? A half a degree warmer in 100 years?

Of course, that's if one is dumb enough to think we'll still be burning fossil fuels and using the combustion engine 50 to 100 years from now. Like somehow technology will stop in its tracks.

Personally, I'm fairly certain transportation, and energy production will look a lot different in the year 2100. Which will completely solve any issues with CO2. Without the cost of $76 trillion dollars.

[WIP]

At some point the question has to be asked "how much is your life worth?" And in this case, that would include the lives of future generations. How much are we paying for the cost of doing nothing? You won't find that one at Foxnews! There are billions of dollars lost in the floods, droughts and tornadoes that have had a real dampening effect on the U.S. economy, and the economic costs of doing nothing and burning more and more oil are going to keep on rising.

It's worth pointing out that this is a 'pay me now, or pay me later' situation. Just as you end up paying a lot more if you decide to delay replacing the timing belt in your car's engine if it breaks, we have a similar situation with climate change - since the costs of mitigating the damaging effects would have been a lot less if the global economies started reducing CO2 emissions 10 or 20 years ago, instead of waiting till now...a time when it is becoming obvious that positive feedback cycles are already in effect, and a lot of change is already in the pipeline just waiting to hit us even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow!

[August1991]

Now, a new U.N. report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.

So let's do the math: That works out to a grand total of $76 trillion, over 40 years -- or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year).

That's a really stupid calculation and it explains why I generally flip through most general news reports that involve any science/math/finance/economics.

$5000 today is not the same as $5000 in 40 years - and not merely because of possible inflation. Which would you rather have? $5000 now or $5000 inflation-protected dollars in 40 years? (To start, you may be dead in 40 years.)

In short, you can't multiply $1.9 trillion by 40 and get $76 trillion. That's adding oranges, bananas and mangoes - money from today with money you'll receive next year, and in 40 years - all together.

Okay, so the US GDP in 40 years will total around 586 trillion.

76 trillion of that is about 13% and of course that'll be spread out globally.

76 trillion seems pretty cheap actually. That's like the cost of general maintenance or something. You weren't just planning on just leaving a worn-out un-maintained piece of shit for future generations to scrape by on were you?

Eyeball, your numbers are all wrong but I like your reasoning. Future GDP will be higher and in the future, we will be able to afford to pay higher costs to protect the environment.

To put this in perspective, if a poor Indian family in Tamil Nadu has a house with a collapsing roof, should they use the family savings to fix the roof or should they send their son off to college to learn about computers? $4000 today is alot of money but in a few years, if the son does well, it will seem like a small sum.

Of course, if the roof collapses before the son goes to college - or the son turns out to be an idiot, then the decision may be critical.

-----

Here's my own prediction: politicians will eventually clue into the idea that they can tax the use of the environment rather than taxing income, wealth or other various practices/habits.

Both income tax and environmental taxes raise revenue, and no one likes taxes. But there's a big difference between the two.

The easiest way to avoid a tax is to stop doing the taxed activity. For this reason alone, income taxes are bad and environmental taxes are good. Income taxes make people lazy. Environmental taxes make the world cleaner.

At some point, a smart politician will understand this and be able to explain it credibly. This will revolutionize our tax system.

Edited July 7, 2011 by August1991

[TimG]

Just as you end up paying a lot more if you decide to delay replacing the timing belt in your car's engine if it breaks

It makes a lot of sense to wait if you know your income is going to 10 times what it is today when that belt goes.

[Bonam]

Here's my own prediction: politicians will eventually clue into the idea that they can tax the use of the environment rather than taxing income, wealth or other various practices/habits.

They already do. You get taxed for owning land. You pay the government a fee if you want to extract oil, lumber, metals, or other materials from crown lands. And of course you also pay tax on the profits generated by those activities. And in many jurisdictions we already tax emissions, as well.

[dre]

A "revamp" of the energy sector is something I see more as an opportunity for economic growth than as a pure expense, especially if it is allowed to happen organically via the private sector.

Well as always it will be a collaboration between the public sector and the private sector. But I agree... weve neglected energy infrastructure and development, and we are going to have to get serious about it whether or not AGW is real or not.

[TimG]

Well as always it will be a collaboration between the public sector and the private sector. But I agree... weve neglected energy infrastructure and development, and we are going to have to get serious about it whether or not AGW is real or not.

Well, our bridges, roads and water systems are a higher priority than over prices renewable energy.

[August1991]

They already do. You get taxed for owning land. You pay the government a fee if you want to extract oil, lumber, metals, or other materials from crown lands. And of course you also pay tax on the profits generated by those activities. And in many jurisdictions we already tax emissions, as well.

Bonam, few politicians understand how lucrative these taxes can be, and none so far can explain them credibly.

We collectively own the environment, or at least we want to preserve it for our great-grandchildren and their offspring. As stewards of this resource, surely we should make everyone pay for its use. And in doing so, we would simply be paying ourselves. After all, that's all any tax is - payment to ourselves.

Edited July 8, 2011 by August1991

[Wild Bill]

$76 trillion is not peanuts. Regardless of the % of global GDP that $76 trillion represents over the next 40 years, for that price and timeframe we could colonize Mars instead.

What a wonderful idea! I think we should do it no matter what happens!

Remember Manny, the hero of Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? He was a technician schooled in what works and what doesn't work. He was continually getting frustrated by what he called "yammerheads", namely non-technical people who would not just suggest but demand the group spend resources doing silly ideas that were impractical, impossible, not cost-effective or all three! Especially when they would assume that MANNY would do the work and look after all the details for them!

Why don't we colonize Mars? Those of us who are not necessarily always right but at least practical can leave. The yammerheads will likely stay home. They don't like pioneer situations because there's too much chance of embarrassing reality checks that would prove them wrong.

Each group would then be free to run things at their home in their own way. If the yammerheads think that transferring wealth from the producing nations to the non-producing ones makes sense, let them do it and we'll see what happens. If all those "science and engineering types that make all the pollution" are ruining the earth, let them leave! Surely earth doesn't need them! Let them colonize Mars and there too we will see what works and what doesn't.

The HitchHikers' Guide to the Galaxy had it right with the "B" Ark...

[dre]

Well, our bridges, roads and water systems are a higher priority than over prices renewable energy.

Not really. Our current energy pradigm is already an impediment to global economic growth, and its going to take a massive ammount of effort and capital to advance into the next energy age, and it will take decades. We need to get started (should have started taking this seriously 30 years ago for that matter).

[Sir Bandelot]

At some point the question has to be asked "how much is your life worth?" And in this case, that would include the lives of future generations. How much are we paying for the cost of doing nothing? You won't find that one at Foxnews! There are billions of dollars lost in the floods, droughts and tornadoes that have had a real dampening effect on the U.S. economy, and the economic costs of doing nothing and burning more and more oil are going to keep on rising.

It's worth pointing out that this is a 'pay me now, or pay me later' situation. Just as you end up paying a lot more if you decide to delay replacing the timing belt in your car's engine if it breaks, we have a similar situation with climate change - since the costs of mitigating the damaging effects would have been a lot less if the global economies started reducing CO2 emissions 10 or 20 years ago, instead of waiting till now...a time when it is becoming obvious that positive feedback cycles are already in effect, and a lot of change is already in the pipeline just waiting to hit us even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow!

"Survival Trumps Economics" - S Bandelot

[TimG]

Not really. Our current energy pradigm is already an impediment to global economic growth, and its going to take a massive ammount of effort and capital to advance into the next energy age, and it will take decades. We need to get started (should have started taking this seriously 30 years ago for that matter).

We have lots of gas, coal, uranium and thorium. There is no need to screw around with useless technologies like wind and solar.

[dre]

We have lots of gas, coal, uranium and thorium. There is no need to screw around with useless technologies like wind and solar.

Neither wind or solar is useless. What makes sense varies on a case to case basis. Some countries have coal and gas, and some dont. And nuclear energy will play a part but it isnt any kind of panacea.

All of those technologies are improving though, and we just dont know at this time how big a part each will play in the future. The cost per generated KW for wind and solar has been coming down very fast. If the current trend continues it will be cheaper than either coal or nuclear in just a few years... so the success of those technologies, since they are intermittent, will depend on the emergence storage technologies. Good progress is being made there as well.

[Bonam]

so the success of those technologies, since they are intermittent, will depend on the emergence storage technologies. Good progress is being made there as well.

As much of a proponent of technological progress trumping everything else as I am, the reality is, energy storage on the scale needed is, technologically, about as far away as, say, fusion. Without a nearby dam where water can be pumped uphill to store energy, there really is no way to store the kinds of energy we are talking about. We are talking about GW quantities of power stored over a day or so timeframe, minimum. That's on the order of about 100 TJ to backup the amount of energy that a large powerplant produces in a day.

The most advanced rechargeable batteries have about 1 MJ/kg of energy density (that's already a stretch beyond any real commercial battery suitable for a high power application by quite a bit). So you would need 100,000 TONS of advanced Li Ion battery to provide energy storage backup sufficient to replace one base load coal/oil/nuclear station for just one day, which would be necessary with power provided from an intermittent source. At the present costs of lithium batteries, that's about $14 billion dollars worth of batteries. Not to mention that amount of lithium simply isn't available. That's $14 billion for each 1 GW of dirty power you want to shut down. To replace all the world's dirty energy, 13 TW, with wind/solar backed up by energy storage, would take $180 trillion, and would take more lithium for batteries than exists in the Earth's crust.

The economics for other energy storage schemes, when scaled to the necessary sizes, don't look any better. People talk about ultracapacitors, but those have a lower energy density than the above mentioned batteries and a far higher cost. People talk about mechanical flywheels, but for the necessary scales, you can only do it with maglev ones that use superconducting magnets... again, the costs are too high by many orders of magnitude. You can store energy by electrolyzing water and reacting it back in fuel cells, but that entails huge efficiency losses, and, again, vast expense.

Even if you assume exponentially accelerating progress in energy storage technologies, entailing breakthroughs in applications of nanotechnology for energy storage, it will be decades yet before they are at the level they need to be to eliminate the need for backing up intermittent power sources with base load power sources. But if the progress does accelerate that way when it comes to energy technologies, then we'll have fusion anyway by the time these technologies are ready.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Bonam

[Bonam]

To add to that, a shorter term solution for the intermittancy of renewables is a lossless power distribution infrastructure. That is, while wind and solar power is intermittent over the size of countries or even continents, if you could average over the whole globe, you could get a much more stable power level. But power transmissions around the world right now would involve too high of an ohmic loss. Superconducting transoceanic electricity transfer trunks that span across the continents before branching off to local power grids would be a big enabler for renewable energy. They could be built with current technology for about a $ 1 billion per km, so a global infrastructure could be built for a few tens of trillions, as opposed to the hundreds of trillions needed for an energy storage infrastructure.

The downside is they are essentially not very useful until the entire system is complete, whereas energy storage backups become usable incrementally as they are built. They are also much more politically difficult since they would require a high degree of international cooperation.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Bonam