Ilmaston muutoksen torjunnan kustannukset yksilölle

[Heikki Jokipii]

Spiked! -lehdessä tämä analyysi siitä, ettei suunniteltu vihreä siirtymä ole vailla kustannuksia...

The tide is turning against the green elites

... ja ei välttämättä enää nauti jakamatonta suosioita:

Given the damage being done to Europe’s industrial base, the political tide is unsurprisingly turning against the greens. The gilets jaunes demonstrations in France in the late 2010s have been followed by large-scale farmers protests in the Netherlands, Poland and Germany. This year, voters gave the greens a ballot-box kicking at the European Parliament elections. Even as the technocracy sticks to its green religion, voters are headed in the opposite direction.
[..]
Most Americans and Europeans simply aren’t buying the climate jihad. In the US, a recent Gallup poll shows that just three per cent of the population considers climate change and the environment their main concern. Even young people, the group most concerned with climate change, rank it far below issues such as inflation, housing, gun violence, jobs and corruption.

To be sure, most Americans, like Europeans, support the notion of climate mitigation. But they’re rather less willing to pay a high price for it – indeed, a large majority seems unwilling even to pay $10 a month to ‘save’ the planet. In contrast, a recent poll suggested that urban elites – high earners with graduate degrees – favour deeply unpopular notions like rationing gas and meat. Even green bastions like Berkeley and Washington state voted overwhelmingly this month against measures to limit or increase taxes on natural gas. And throughout red America’s vast expanses, communities have been rejecting hundreds of wind and solar projects.

Tämä erikseen esille vedettynä:

Given the likelihood of mass opposition, what can the alliance of oligarchs and greens do? They must be sorely tempted by Bertolt Brecht’s famous line that it would be ‘easier for the government to dissolve the people, and elect another’.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Tässä pyöritellään todella suuria rahamääriä, vaikka näin otsikoidaankin:

"Mitätön summa" – Ilmastokokouksessa päätettiin kolminkertaistaa kehittyville maille maksettava ilmastorahoitus, mutta lisärahaa voi olla tarjolla vasta kymmenen vuoden päästä

YK:n ilmastokokouksessa Azerbaidzhanin Bakussa lähes 200 maata on hyväksynyt uuden sopimuksen, jonka mukaan kehittyneiltä mailta kehittyville maille suunnattava ilmastorahoitus nousee ainakin 300 miljardiin dollariin vuodessa. Tavoitteeseen tulee päästä vuoteen 2035 mennessä.

Rahoitus ainakin kolminkertaistuu, sillä tämänhetkisessä, pian umpeutuvassa sopimuksessa rahoitussumma on 100 miljardia dollaria vuodessa.

Neuvottelut yliajalle venyneessä ilmastokokouksessa näyttivät hetkittäin olevan romahduksen partaalla, kun kehittyvien maiden edustajat marssivat pois keskusteluista ja uhkasivat hylätä neuvottelut, jos rikkaat valtiot eivät suostu lisäämään rahoitusta.

Lopulta kehittyvät maat eivät kuitenkaan asettuneet sopimuksen hyväksymisen tielle, vaikka summa jäikin kauas heidän toivomastaan. Maat olivat vaatineet summaksi vähintään 500:aa miljardia dollaria vuodessa.

[..]Hän uskoo, että sovituilla määrärahoilla ja rakenteella pystytään saavuttamaan myös kokonaisrahoitustavoite, joka on vuoteen 2035 mennessä 1,3 biljoonaa eli 1 300 miljardia dollaria vuodessa. Kokonaisrahoitustavoite on määrä saavuttaa valtioiden sopiman rahoitussumman ja yksityisen lisärahoituksen avulla.

Tarkastellaanpa asiaa tästä näkökulmasta: jos ja kun tuosta kaikesta vastaa noin miljardin ihmisen rikkaaampi maailman osa, merkitsee se täällä kustannuksia vauvasta vaariin n. 300-1300 dollaria. Se ei ole pieni rahasumma. Vähemmästäkin on yleislakkoja syntynyt. 

Kaiken sen päälle, että on maksettava mm. Ukrainan jälleenrakennus, ehkä Gazankin. Ja erilaiset luonnon- ja muut katastrofit, jotka eivät liity ilmastonmuutokseeen.

Ja puolustukseen, asevarusteluunkin pitäisi kuulemma jatkossa käyttää 2-3 % BKT:sta?

Täältä eli Greenpeacelta tulee apteekin hyllyltä (lihav. HJ):

Kososen mukaan rahat ilmastoratkaisuihin löytyvät kyllä, jos ennätysvoittoja tahkonnut fossiiliteollisuus laitetaan maksamaan ja fossiilituet poistetaan.

Sattui juuri silmään tämä kriittinen artikkeli:

No, Fossil Fuels Are Not Being “Subsidised”

Whenever discussing renewables subsidies on the internet, there is a form of Godwin’s Law that means it is inevitable that someone will come along and say: “Ackshually, fossil fuels are subsidised more than renewables,” or words to that effect, as shown in this example. I have often thought the claim to be bogus, but until now had never dug into the detail to prove the case one way or the other.

Energy is one of the elementary foundations of modern society. Almost any activity you can think of requires energy input of some type or other. Factories need energy to make things. Offices need energy for heating, lighting, cooling and running computers, as do our homes. Hospitals need energy to run operating theatres. We need energy to go to work or visit friends and family, whether we travel by car or train. We need energy to do the family shopping, cook, to travel to the gym, cinema, or restaurant. Energy is fundamental to every economic and social interaction, so it would not be surprising if energy were subsidised. Expensive energy is like a tax on our very existence, so taxes on energy act as a drag on society.

It is therefore vital that we get to the bottom of the claimed fossil fuel subsidies in the U.K.

Ja tuo artikkeli perustelee sanomansa.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Tämän mukaan massiiviset tukimiljardit ilmastoasioihin eivät hyödytä köyhää kansaa:

Special interest subsidies DO NOT support the diverse 8 billion on this planet.

The billions living in developing countries ARE NOT benefiting from Government subsidies.
[..]
Since subsidies come from all of us, maybe we should be careful how we use them. It turns out that most of the subsidies go to foreign businesses, many of which support the exploitation of slave labor to mine for the “green” minerals and metals to produce windmills, solar panels, and EV batteries, as well as the infliction of environmental degradation to “their” landscapes to reinforce mandated EV’s, wind turbines, and solar panels in “our backyards”!

We also pay foreign companies to install them. This reality reveals the imperialistic nature of US politics, which exploits the world’s poor people to fuel our desire for luxury. This is patently immoral.

Amerikkalainen näkökulma. Sitä mielenkiintoisempi on siinä lopussa tuleva näkemys, mikä hyödyttäisi:

Since the US took the lead in all technological advancements during the Industrial Revolution, which started in the mid-to-late 1800s, it makes sense that we lead the rest of the world into the production of cheap, clean energy using nuclear power. One way to do that would be to petition individual state Governors to show the Federal government how it is done. Compete the production and delivery of electricity like our citizens demanded of the long-distance phone call business. After all, how better would your life be with competitive one cent per kWh electricity over the possibility of one dollar per kWh electricity that data centers would bid for electricity if production stayed the same while their demands soared?

When people know the possibilities, the transition to nuclear power will happen quickly. The transition should happen without the elimination of cheap production of electricity through natural gas and coal until the market drives the transition to nuclear power. Imagine the massive increase in quality of life worldwide with easily affordable electricity delivered to every household.

If the US does not take the lead with a “New Nuclear Posture for a Hungry World” that is fully supported by Oliver Stone’s 105-minute movie NUCLEAR NOW, our adversaries will.

Se ei ole asia, joka olisi suurten öljy-yhtiöiden intressissä.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Tässä edelllinen on esitetty jo vaatimuksena:

Return Funding for Reliable Energy to the World’s Poorest

A centerpiece of President Biden’s agenda was a government led effort to greatly reduce production and consumption of fossil fuels. One of the key policies Biden enacted to pursue this goal was ending of public finance for fossil fuel projects.  This policy  attracted little public attention or scrutiny, since it had little impact on Americans. The policy mainly impacted the global poor, especially in Africa, which lost access to funding to develop electricity capacity. While ending public finance for fossil fuels provided a feel good moment for the Biden administration and governing elites in  other wealthy countries, it hurt the world’s poorest, did not impact climate change and created an opportunity for China to increase its geopolitical influence in Africa and beyond. Cancellation of  these restrictions on public finance for fossil fuels should be on the day one list of the incoming Trump administration.

Mutta siinä puhutaan taas fossiilisista polttoaineista. Eikä ydinvoimasta kuten juuri edellä. Yhteistä on kuitenkin vaatimus luotettavasta energiasta.

***

Ja mitä siellä Bakussa todella päätettiin?

COP 29 diplomacy delivers perfectly vague promises a decade away

In Cop 29’s “Finance agreement” diplomacy is truly the art of agreeing to nothing. There is no agreement of substance here because there is no substance to this agreement. Each side gets its number someday and that is all there is to it.

Let’s look at the actual text to see the nothing. But first recall what was supposed to happen. The Paris Agreement committed the developed country members to providing $100 billion a year to the developing countries through 2025. COP 29 was simply supposed to revise that annual payment up beginning in 2026. That did not happen, not even close.

The fiasco started when the developing countries demanded huge impossibly sums centered on $1.3 trillion. That set in motion a series of side steps leading to the present agreement which is very different from the intended goal.

To begin with the $1.3 trillion annual payment is there but it is “by 2035” so ten years from now not in 2026. I can see delaying it until a few years after Trump leaves office but these folks are wedded to their five year plans.

Suomen mediassa on puhuttu tästä summasta:

Then there is the other big number, the $300 billion a year. This is widely assumed to replace the $100 billion a year mandated by the Paris Agreement through 2025. For example CBS has a headline that yells “deal reached at UN’s COP29 climate talks for $300 billion a year (up from $100 billion).”

This is incorrect as here too the new agreement says the goal is “by 2035.” Nor is all (or any) of this distant sum necessarily coming from developed countries as the yearly $100 billion had to. The new agreement just says “with developed country Parties taking the lead.” (Parties means to the Paris Agreement.)

“Taking the lead” is an extremely vague concept. It might mean paying over half say $151 billion. Or just being the biggest donor at say $20 billion. Or even just running a bunch of promotions to get private investors to invest, which might only millions.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Ikävä tarina tai huhu:

Did COP29 Delegates Trade Intimate Dinner Dates for Food?

[Heikki Jokipii]

Kaiken aktiivisuuden (ja rahankäytön) potentiaalisista tuloksista:

Monday Mirthiness: Imagine the Global Impact on Temperature!

Anthony Watts   

The UK is going all out on Net Zero. Here’s a picture above for scale. I think the UK pols still think of themselves as a global power. Sorry, that ship has sailed.

Meanwhile, our resident debunker, the ever factual Willis Eschenbach, wrote a post from two weeks ago that defines just how much the UK can impact global temperatures with this Net Zero madness: Keir Starmer’s Climate Madness

For those of you that are not part of the climate wokerati, the answer won’t surprise you.

Linkistä suoraan siihen vastaukseen (lihav. alkup.):

So IF (and it’s a big if) the IPCC estimates of the effects of CO2 on temperature are accurate, then all of the time and effort and stacks of money expended by UK taxpayers will result in the earth being cooler in 2050 by …

…

… wait for it …

…

… a whopping 0.0007°C.

Seriously. All that wealth and human effort, all the government regulations and interference, all the suffering of the poor from skyrocketing energy costs, to MAYBE cool the world by seven ten-thousandths of a degree in 2050.

Ja se oli väkiluvultaan yli 10 kertaa niin suuressa maassa kuin Suomi. Mutta pitäisi tehdä laskelma, paljonko koko EU:n ilmastoneutraalisuus oletettavasti vaikuttaa maailman lämpotilaan.

[Heikki Jokipii]

Lomborgilta 24.11.2024 jakelulistan kautta minullekin:

Redistributing global wealth won't solve climate change

International climate diplomacy is all about financial transfers now. At the ongoing UN climate summit in Azerbaijan (COP29), we are seeing campaigners, celebrities and politicians talking at length about “climate justice” and the need for trillions of dollars per year.

But this pathway will be prohibitively expensive for the West, demanding about $1,000 from every person in the rich world, every year, for the foreseeable future. This was never going to happen, even before Donald Trump’s election—but now it is utterly unrealistic and we need a smarter approach forward.

Vaikkei tuo ehkä Ihan niin sitten mennytkään. Siitä puheenvuorosta "Ja mitä siellä Bakussa todella päätettiin?".

[Heikki Jokipii]

Näin tärkeitä ovat ihmisille etelänmatkat:

Hurja ennuste lentomatkustamisesta

Lentoliikenteessä tehdään ensi vuonna uusi ennätys, povaa lentoyhtiöiden kansainvälinen etujärjestö IATA. Lentoliikenteen matkustajien määrä ylittänee ensi kertaa viiden miljardin rajan.

Tämän verran asia arveluttaa, että tämä täytyy uutisessa mainita:

Lentoliikenteen osuus ihmisten aiheuttamasta ilmaston lämpenemisestä on Traficomin mukaan noin 3,5 prosenttia.

Mutta hävinneet ovat puheet "lentohäpeästä"!

Asiassa ei eliitti yleensä ja ilmastoaktvistinen eliitti erikseen näytä mitään hyvää esimerkkiä:

Private Jets, Public Hypocrisy: How Climate Alarmists Just Reinvented Irony

***

Liharuoan syöminen on kai teoreettisesti saman verran tai vähemmän.