Yeah, Climate Protection Is Going To Be A Little Expensive

Why do I get the feeling this Accenture/Barclay’s report is going to have a serious backlash? Good if it does! The warmists outlets are already out there doing pre-emptive damage control, going into denial and wishful thinking.

A study carried out by consultants Accenture and Barclays Bank confirms that “climate protection” is going to cost a bundle and will involve “gigantic investments” if Europe’s target of reducing CO2 emissions 20% by 2020 is to be reached. The price tag for Europeans: 2.9 TRILLION euros, i.e. €2,900,000,000,000.00! With 450 million Europeans, that means €6,444.00 for every man, woman and child. The warmist klimaretter writes:

But at the same time, the conclusion that climate protection is expensive cannot be drawn from the calculations. The study does not analyse the costs the of climate protection, but only the necessary investments. Among these there are some that are economically attractive and thus will save money over the years.”

The question ought to be: “What are all these costs going to lead to?” The answer is: nothing. How about taking a look around and opening your eyes? Look at all the poverty out there that is screaming for investment. Look at the sorry state of many schools and hospitals in Europe.

Yet, instead of investing in these important things, the EU wants to blow the money on an energy system that no one really needs – one that is mandated by a fraud.

But the warmists are doing their damnedest to put a positive spin on it. Remember that protecting the climate is an abstract concept that exists only in Fairyland. The concept that we can “protect the climate” is a complete myth. As best I can tell, climate protection for warmists means the production of good weather. Good luck! Klimaretter writes:

The study shows foremost that climate protection is a big business opportunity, also for banking services because it will provide a large share of the needed capital. Therefore one has to view the necessary investments as a chance for the economy.

That this is going to be a big bonanza for the banks is no exaggeration. They are going to make a killing, but at the expense of the consumer. And saying these investments are a “chance” for the economy is really incorrect labelling. It’s going to be a “gamble” for the economy – Russian Roulette style. Klimaretter writes:

Climate protection is ‘one of the megatrends of the economy’.

They’re right about that. But that does not make it a trend that will lead to success. Having everyone go off the edge of a cliff as a trend does not make it a reasonable endeavour. Klimaretter then reports on Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen meeting with industry leaders of Allianz, Metro, Siemens and Viessmann, saying that the energetic renovation of buildings will have top priority and “the politicians must see to it that the renovation is equally attractive for property owners and users.”

More on Allianz in a day or two. In the meantime just keep in mind that this is all based on “purchased science”.  If they looked at the real science, all that capital could be directed to real problems.

Sorry folks for the disappearing articles. It’s been a long day and I’ve hit some wrong buttons and so a really rough draft that was not meant to appear showed up as a new post. I’ll most likely post it tomorrow. – PG

12 responses to “Yeah, Climate Protection Is Going To Be A Little Expensive”

  1. mindert eiting

    Doesn’t matter Pierre. Just one serious question: who or what caused the canals on Mars? While I am looking through my telescope, I do not see them. Neither do I see any exceptional warming. Within a few years I have to pay my complete pension for the cure of a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s pretty bizarre.

  2. DirkH

    They want the EU to give guaranteed incentives so that private capital will invest in green schemes; thus creating 100% safe investments. This is of course an illusion – the market hates risk-aversion and will change in exactly the way that breaks the scheme most efficiently. So, if the EU member states are dumb enough to follow this advice, they will, with a 100% certainty, go bankrupt collectively or have to introduce enough inflation to make the promises worthless.

    One could also say, there is not something from nothing. It *will* break.

    (The incentives are only needed for worthless technology – if the tech were worthy, it needed no incentives. So it’s money down the drain. There is no wealth creation in this scheme; it is net wealth destruction.)

  3. grayman

    The grand scheme of it all is a few will get rich and most will suffer through it, and we all know who gets rich! Knowing that it will not change a thing in the climate or weatherof the world makes it even worse!

  4. Bernd Felsche

    €2,900,000,000,000.00 … That’d buy about 3000 1.4GW nuclear reactors for power generation. What’s the present generating capacity of coal, gas and oil-fired power stations in the EU?

    They’re talking rubbish, aren’t they?

    Filtering the crap out of (you’ll need a very large pitch-fork) shows a gross installed, present capacity of under 400GW. Which at even at €1,000,000,000/GW build cost for nuclear would be less than one-sixth of the projected costs of reducing emissions when replacing the “conventional” power stations.

    So much for banks wanting us to spend our money prudently.

  5. Beano

    So what happens if by 2015 the alleged 2020 20% reduction doesn’t look like being achievable? Will this entail committing even many more Trillions?

    1. Green Sand

      “So what happens if by 2015 the alleged 2020 20% reduction doesn’t look like being achievable?”

      The EU commissars will mobilise their army, invade your country and re-educate you!

      You have been warned:-)

  6. R. de Haan

    “1. März 2011 at 04:24 | Permalink | Reply
    So what happens if by 2015 the alleged 2020 20% reduction doesn’t look like being achievable? Will this entail committing even many more Trillions?”

    It’s 100% sabotage of our economies.
    I think the EU will introduce a prohibition of fossil fuels soon.
    Of course they will blame the NA and ME crises for the lack of oil.

    What we are watching is what our elite call the First Global Revolution.

  7. Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Mar. 3rd 2011 « The Daily Bayonet

    […] will be pleased to learn the cost of saving Gaia from a trace gas is only €6,444.00.  […]

  8. Mas

    It’s pretty expensive for NASA too as a second climate satellite launch just failed, GLORY, to go with the failure of OCO two years ago both on the same Taurus XL rocket.

    1. Brian G Valentine

      No Guts no GLORY

      I’m not weeping, the data would only be used regulate people

      1. DirkH

        Calling it an “environmental satellite” was a bad omen.

        1. Brian G Valentine

          When that OCO went down I celebrated with a couple of “Carbon Martinis” – I put a little finely divided charcoal in them, turned it a black suspension.

          When that OCO started sending data back the regulators would start crawling out from under the rocks everywhere

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy