People march during a demonstration under the banner “Protect the climate – stop coal” two days before the start of the COP 23 UN Climate Change Conference hosted by Fiji but held in Bonn, Germany November 4, 2017. REUTERS/Wolfgang Rattay
The United Nations is demanding more “climate action,” urging member countries to mobilize trillions of dollars more to fight man-made global warming.
UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa said “the very fabric of life on Earth is under threat” from global warming “We must act right here, right now,” Espinosa told delegates and activists gathered in Bonn, Germany for another round of climate talks.
In particular, UN climate bureaucrats are asking countries to be more ambitious in their plans to meet the Paris accord. That’s a request that experts expect will cost the world trillions of more dollars in the coming decades.
S&P Global Markets’ new report puts the price at $5.2 trillion to implement national-level plans to comply with the Paris agreement. But that figure is based on financial estimates individual countries submitted to the UN.
“Of the 189 countries that have submitted NDCs, only about 60 have included specific financial estimates of the costs, meaning the total would likely tally up far beyond the $5 trillion stated,” S&P reported, which adds that spending is not nearly enough to meet the goals of the Paris accord.
However, the UN estimates national plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions to shave 0.2 degrees Celsius off projected 3.2 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100. (This, of course, assumes the climate models have it right, which may not be the case.)
That’s $5.2 trillion to avert 0.2 degrees Celsius of projected warming.
In signing the Paris accord, nearly 200 countries agreed to cut emissions enough to keep future global warming under 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The accord’s stretch goal is keeping warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
The UN’s “emissions gap” report claims the world is only cutting emissions one-third of what’s needed to avoid “dangerous” global warming and comply with the Paris accord. Of course, that’s going to take more money.
S&P’s $5.2 trillion would be just a starting point in that case. Economists and policy experts have put forward a wide range of estimates on what it would cost to fight global warming.
A recent Stanford University report put the cost of meeting the Paris accord at $58 trillion over the next 25 years. That comes out to about $2.3 trillion a year for the next quarter century.
The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) estimated it would cost $15 trillion, and Bloomberg New Energy Finance said $12.7 trillion was needed to keep projected global warming below 2 degrees Celsius.
“Global Warming”? Don’t they mean Man Made Global Warming?
.. or do they just skip “Man Made” because that part doesn’t exist?
IR Expert Speaks Out After 40 Years Of Silence : “IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2”
Mike Sanicola says:
I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all. In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason. From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”. I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2.
January 25, 2014 at 11:28 pm
This is exactly what I have been reporting from running the radiative transfer model used by NCAR. The people writing these models know that global warming is BS.
The science is clear, there’s no temperature increase in the atmosphere over the last 6 decades, ref.: 1875 coldest year in 10000 years and no warming for 58 years
That is equivalent to what is actually measured (in many ways the measured US temperature records IS the global temperature records for most of the first part of the 20. century and before simply because that is where the instruments was located.)
If there really was a problem, the previous graph wouldn’t have a red line!
Why cheat if there’s really a problem??
Ref.: Climatic Irony Found in An Old National Geographic Magazine