Question: A man sitting next to a radiator in his living room wants to feel 0.2°C cooler. What should he do?
a) Move his chair a couple centimeters further away from the radiator, or
b) Go out and pay $5000 for a completely new heating system from a shady manufacturer who promises it will be 0.2°C cooler.
Sane persons of course will answer with “a”. But if you’re the European Union and your advisers are German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, and sleazy furnace salesmen Hans Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Malthusian Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research (PIK), your answer is “b”.
In fact salesmen Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf have convinced the man that unless he buys the new, cooler furnace today, he’ll soon fry.
Worse, the furnace that promises to solve “the problem”, does not even work when there’s no sun or little wind. No matter though, you still have to buy it. This is what Schellnhuber and Edenhofer of the alarmist/activist PIK are demanding of every global citizen today. The absurdity and arrogance simply could not be more profound.
Call it a field plan for a green September 1, 1939 kind of bank account invasion (US citizens, watch your 401k). It’s that crazy.
According to the green-fundamentalist Klima Der Gerechtigkeit (in English: Climate of Justice), the teutonic Edenhofer of the PIK) on Monday will introduce to the public his master economic plan for mitigating dangerous global warming, dubbedSpecial Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation.
The Special Report sums up 164 existing studies and tries to get an overview of just how much renewable energies can contribute in solving the “climate problem”. This of course involves spending gargantuan sums of money that an almost bankrupt planet does not have. How much will it cost? Klima der Gerechtigkeit writes (emphasis added):
Witha mere twelve thousand billion dollars by 2030, a global energy transformation could be achieved that would lead to about 3/4 regenerative energy worldwide by 2050.”
Yes, for that “mere” amount of money, we can get a temperature change that no one will even notice. That “mere” amount is about 8 times the direct cost of WWII for the planet, see here (h/t ArndB). So far I have yet to find a single language that has the words to describe the magnitude of this proposed folly.
As it stands now for the greenshirts, we are nowhere near where we have to be. Klima der Gerechtigkeit writes:
Indeed the current situation is dismal: Almost the entire energy mix comes from coal, gas and oil. Nuclear energy is only 2% (and growth here is very improbable). About 13% is already generated by“renewables”, by behind this is unfortunately too much biomass that is used conventionally, i.e. firewood, and so directly drives deforestation (and the climate problem) . ‘Water power then follows (2.3%), wind energy (0.2%), solar energy and geothermal (each 0.1%) as well as ocean energy(0.002%).’ (Zeit)”
How many tens of billions have flowed into renewables so far? 0.3% is all we have to show for it? The 12 trillion number can be doubled, tripled, or even quadrupled, and you still will never reach the 75% target by 2050. In the end as a result, we’ll have a hollowed out society with hundreds of millions more suffering and dying in abject poverty.
What we need is economic sustainability, and not sustainable wealth destruction.