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

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

www.foxnews.com

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).

(visit the link for the full news article)

But hidden deep in the story is also this revelation:

That’s because it is. The report goes on and says “one half of the required investments would have to be realized in developing countries.” In other words, $38 trillion would go to the developing world.
The survey details where that money would go. “Survey estimates that incremental green investment of about 3 percent of world gross product (WGP) (about $1.9 trillion in 2010) would be required to overcome poverty, increase food production to eradicate hunger without degrading land and water resources, and avert the climate change catastrophe.”

So eradicating hunger and overcoming poverty are now part of the climate debate.

Bottom line, this isn't about going green, or climate change. It's nothing more than a world-wide attempt at wealth redistribution - with the words "green" and "climate" thrown in to try and disguise the true purpose.



www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

this was an interesting video on the subject, it's called Go Green, KILL PEOPLE!

Well, you paid to accelerate mother Earth's demise, you gotta pay to fix it...

pshhh, idiots..

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
Well, you paid to accelerate mother Earth's demise, you gotta pay to fix it...

pshhh, idiots..

I believe the person that is referring to everyone as idiots has their own issues.

Get out much?

I do not think I have to pay to fix anything......I fix my own vehicles and I pick up everybody else's crap that they discard recklessly in nature.....

Do you know what nature is? Or are you the one throwing your trash out the window?

Should I have to pay because you are typing on a key board that is made from petroleum?(I realize that I am, I do not have an issue with it)............... What about your everyday life? Do you use anything that harms nature?

You are no better than everybody else.

I believe that I pay enough taxes..The azzholes in congress need to learn how to spend it wisely........

Originally posted by centurion1211


But hidden deep in the story is also this revelation:

That’s because it is. The report goes on and says “one half of the required investments would have to be realized in developing countries.” In other words, $38 trillion would go to the developing world.
The survey details where that money would go. “Survey estimates that incremental green investment of about 3 percent of world gross product (WGP) (about $1.9 trillion in 2010) would be required to overcome poverty, increase food production to eradicate hunger without degrading land and water resources, and avert the climate change catastrophe.”

So eradicating hunger and overcoming poverty are now part of the climate debate.

Bottom line, this isn't about going green, or climate change. It's nothing more than a world-wide attempt at wealth redistribution - with the words "green" and "climate" thrown in to try and disguise the true purpose.

that's a pretty stupid conclusion to come to from the passage you quoted.

Green is expensive - poor people can't afford expensive, so if you want to "green" the world you ahve to raise the level of wealth to the point where poor peole CAN afford green.

There's no point the US & Europe going nice & green all alone if 6 billion other ppeople in the world continue to pollute, use oil and coal (becaue they are cheaper & easier than teh alternatives), and don't "play the game".

now you can whine and moan about not wanting to green all you like, about wealth redistribution, or the fact that greening will require wealth distrubution or it isn't going to work - but saying that the green movement is actually a plot to redistribute wealth is just ignorance.

If this nation had pulled its collective head out their 8-cylinder tuna-boat-butts, back before Reagan dismantled all the solar panels at the White House that Prez Carter had installed and then cancelled all the incentives to 'go green' before it was all the rage--and stood up for alternative energy---we'd be so much farther along in the game.

Now that the 'good ol oil/coal/energy boys' have figured that they can't keep running the show like they have in the past, and have a new cash cow, 'go green'-- now they're going to stick it to us by forcing us to implement technology that should have been mainstream twenty years ago, and by now would have been a hell of a lot cheaper and more efficient than the stunted technology we have today.

These numbers are deceptive and irrelevant. First off you need to realize this is over 40 years. It is deceptive to compare the GDP for one year of the US and the green energy needs of the whole world for 40 years. Lets take the amount of money spent on nuclear energy for 40 years for the whole world and compare it. This would include all the subsidizes, waste cleanup, and medical expenses. It is an easy choice to go green.

This is an estimate on global sustainability with many variable factors at work. What if energy prices fell from 8c per KWh with coal to 1c per KWh from some new energy processes as with Blacklight www.blacklightpower.com... ? There will be a big economic redistribution and this is one of the challenges that a lot of alternative energy sources are up against. As for the actual overall cost it is about life and death on a global scale.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Centurion1211
Bottom line, this isn't about going green, or climate change. It's nothing more than a world-wide attempt at wealth redistribution - with the words "green" and "climate" thrown in to try and disguise the true purpose.

that's a pretty stupid conclusion to come to from the passage you quoted.
...
now you can whine and moan about not wanting to green all you like, about wealth redistribution, or the fact that greening will require wealth distrubution or it isn't going to work - but saying that the green movement is actually a plot to redistribute wealth is just ignorance.

Since you obviously haven't read the article or the U.N. report, or the Naomi Klein and Stern reports on which they are based, you really shouldn't be so presumptuous and insulting.

If you'd read the damn thing, you'd know that the real goal is one-world government and government control of production and education. (With Obama, we're well on our way already.)

And, as in all things from the U.N., government is the solution: “Governments will have to assume a much more central role” in making the change to a green economy. Where there’s government, there must be control and “active industrial and educational policies aimed at inducing the necessary changes in infrastructure and production processes.”

Educational policies? They are just a start. Try energy caps “if, for instance, emission reduction targets cannot be met through accelerated technological progress in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation, it may be necessary to impose caps on energy consumption itself in order to meet climate change mitigation targets in a timely manner.”

That would lead naturally to “the prospect of ‘prosperity without growth,’” and even the U.N. admits that “may not be very appealing.” No matter. We’ll all have to accept that and the “major structural transformations of economies and societies.”

www.foxnews.com...

Reading further,you would've seen that climate is not the motivating force at all; it is redistrbution of wealth under the guise of fighting climatte change:

The report noted that all of this $76 trillion in spending in based on the “precautionary principle” decided at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. According to that principle, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs Sha Zukang wrote, “in the absence of scientific consensus that a particular action or policy is harmful to the public or to the environment, the burden of proof that the suspect action or policy is not harmful rests with the party or parties implementing it.” In other words, even if the U.N. is wrong on climate change, we should still spend $76 trillion to fight it.

www.foxnews.com...

Here, I thought you were able to see through the scams and get to the basics. 'Guess I was wrong.

deny ignorance

jw

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
that's a pretty stupid conclusion to come to from the passage you quoted.

Green is expensive - poor people can't afford expensive, so if you want to "green" the world you have to raise the level of wealth to the point where poor people CAN afford green.

And just how would that be accomplished? Wait for it ... Redistributing the wealth from "rich" nations to poor nations. Because the poor nations wouldn't be poor if they could ever figure out how not to be poor on their own.

There's no point the US & Europe going nice & green all alone if 6 billion other people in the world continue to pollute, use oil and coal (because they are cheaper & easier than the alternatives), and don't "play the game".

Exactly. China and India already want "exemptions" so they don't have to hurt their own economies. The burden will - quite unfairly - fall on the U.S. and a few western European nations.

now you can whine and moan about not wanting to green all you like, about wealth redistribution, or the fact that greening will require wealth distribution or it isn't going to work - but saying that the green movement is actually a plot to redistribute wealth is just ignorance.

Great use of double-speak BS to actually prove my original point. Now go back and read the article - for content this time - before posting anything so ridiculous again.

Originally posted by czygyny
If this nation had pulled its collective head out their 8-cylinder tuna-boat-butts, back before Reagan dismantled all the solar panels at the White House that Prez Carter had installed and then cancelled all the incentives to 'go green' before it was all the rage--and stood up for alternative energy---we'd be so much farther along in the game.

Some sort of strong response had to be made after 9/11, but was what happened really the right one? A $trillion or more invested in energy and transportation infrastructure would have left us untouchable by the rest of the world and NOT in this huge recession.

Now that the 'good ol oil/coal/energy boys' have figured that they can't keep running the show like they have in the past, and have a new cash cow, 'go green'-- now they're going to stick it to us by forcing us to implement technology that should have been mainstream twenty years ago, and by now would have been a hell of a lot cheaper and more efficient than the stunted technology we have today.

And they really end up double charging us because they also raise the rates on current forms of energy to make up for their lost revenues due to all of our conservation efforts.

Al Gore really makes the perfect poster boy for these people - living in a huge house, driving multiple SUVs, having as many kids as he wants, AND then telling the rest of us how we all really need to conserve.

it isn't that i think alternative energy is bad. not at all. just the way of going about is not in the best interest of the poor people of the planet. doesn't do any good to give them sparkling clean air so they won't die, only to starve them to death with expensive technologies it just needs to be more people friendly.

But its ok because IMO we will eventually switch to free energy at which point the economy and money become obsolete. Then we can just do what needs to be done becaue its the right thing to do and forget about squabbling over rectangular pieces of paper/plastic

Lets hope plastic solar panels aren't too far off... Panels that are 95% efficient with riveted holes in the corners, so every redneck, tribesman, and eskimo can bungee cord a decent setup on their rooftops. How about these are sold for the low introductory price of less than 24-pack sodas?

reply to post by Cecilofs

But its ok because IMO we will eventually switch to free energy at which point the economy and money become obsolete. Then we can just do what needs to be done becaue its the right thing to do and forget about squabbling over rectangular pieces of paper/plastic

Free energy? Great! Where? I'll switch over today.

reply to post by Americanist

Lets hope plastic solar panels aren't too far off... Panels that are 95% efficient with riveted holes in the corners, so every redneck, tribesman, and eskimo can bungee cord a decent setup on their rooftops. How about these are sold for the low introductory price of less than 24-pack sodas?

Every time I think of solar panels the image of a bitterly cold overcast winter day here in the northeast pops into my mind, and I shudder at the thought of having to clear the ice and snow from them.

But I'll have a couple cords of firewood as a backup, and sleep snug as a bug.

What's the problem?

They've figured it all out, so all we have to do now is do it!

I suppose the world bankers will want to handle all the loans to governments to pay the giant corporations to build new infrastructure to support a "sustainable" economy.

Of course, you could just let the place fall apart, and we'd be forced to "go green" eventually.

The point is this: This planet isn't in an ethical position where is can really think straight about the technology it will need to implement in the near future if it wants to stay alive. We need to solve the ethical dilemma or the technology will just be subverted as has been happening up to now. If we could somehow get people in power to be honest, or replace them with people who were willing to be, the technology and cost issues would no longer be a big deal.

reply to post by mishigas


It can't rain all the time. That's when cold fusion (LENR) replaces the wood-burning oven. Followed by the full potential of wi-tricity (tethered energy on demand). Makes for some pretty impressive redundancy features.

Sleep well!