It has long been dawning on most people that the costs of Germany’s Energiewende (transition to green energies) have been spectacularly underestimated. As Germany rushes into its foray with renewable energies, principally wind and sun, we are finding out that many of the costs involved were never taken into account. According to Die Welt:
In Germany up to 2.3 trillion euros additionally have to be invested in order to reach the long-term climate protection targets of 2050. That’s the result from a current study by the Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie [German Federation of Industry].”
Journalist Daniel Wetzel at the online flagship daily Die Welt reports on the results of the study commissioned by the German BDI, which found that the cost of Germany (only Germany!) meeting its 2050 Paris Accord obligations (95% reduction) could be as high as 2.3 trillion euros ($2.8 trillion).
Chart source: Union of Concerned Scientists.
Recently the Union of Concerned Scientists reported that Germany’s share global CO2 emissions is only some 2%, or a mere 1/50th of global emissions. So even if Germany did manage to reach its 2050 reductions target, it would represent only a percent or two of total global CO2 output and thus would have no perceptible theoretical effect on global temperature.
One could argue that Germans will be paying 2.3 trillion euros in exchange for practically nothing. That kind of money would be far better spent on Germany’s crumbling infrastructure, education and defense (e.g. paying its fair share to NATO).
The costs would be so severe that according to Die Welt:
The CO2 emissions cuts produce economic losers in 4 of 5 cases.”
The sanity of a $100 trillion global tab?
Moreover, if it costs over 2 trillion euros to eliminate just 1/50th of all emissions, then proportionately it means it would cost over 100 trillion euros for the entire planet to reduce emissions by 95% – using German rates – and ignoring the fact that each tonne gets more and more expensive to eliminate. One seriously has to question the sanity behind spending so much money for so little potential theoretical benefit.
The latest BDI cost estimate towers well beyond earlier estimates of a trillion euros made by Angela Merkel’s top aid Peter Altmaier just a few years ago. Many critics scoffed at Altmaier’s figure, which is now looking far too conservative.
The 2.3 trillion euro figure suggested by the BDI’s 330-page study took “200 experts one year” to calculate, Die Welt reports, and involved 68 industry associations. The data was crunched and analyzed by Prognos and the Boston Consulting Group. The report adds that Germany will have to invest 1.5 trillion euros over the next 30 years just to reach the less ambitious 80% target for 2050.
Figure may be underestimated, economically unsurvivable
Though today these figures may appear astronomical and almost beyond human imaginative abilities – they likely are still far too conservative given Germany’s penchant for seriously underestimating the costs of public projects, e.g. Elbphilharmonie, Berlin BER airport.
But what is especially worrisome is that there are many signs indicating the “Energiewende” will fail totally. So far it has been costing Germans 25 billion euros annually and it has done nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.
25 responses to “New Study: German Agreed 2050 CO2 Reductions Could Cost Astronomical $2.8 TRILLION By 2050!”
“It took 200 experts”?!
Then clearly they are not experts.
Anyone with half a brain could have worked this out.
Keep in mind there’s a lot of data to sort through…
Any information in the projected price for electricity after the $3 trillion investment?Here in the US, we are happy to see BMW and Mercedes increasing their production volumes in Alabama and South Carolina. And with the cost of Natural gas so low in the US, it will be hard to stay competitive on basic resin manufacturing anywhere else in the world. Honestly though, I’m sure your political leaders are only an election cycle or two from correcting the nonsense it’s imposed on German citizens.
The sad thing is the propaganda machine has blinded so many people to these unconscionable costs that they refuse to throw the bums out!
Germans pretty much living in a pretend world now. Leaders are pretending that the Energiewende is fine, and the citizens are pretending that it still doesn’t cost too much. The bill has yet to arrive.
Also there has been no reduction in Coal Use in the last 40 years either.
Literaly money in to someones pockets for no real gain at all.
That’s right, the growth in ‘renewables’ (excluding hydro) has merely replaced nuclear; fossil fuel generation has remained roughly constant:
And the trend in CO2 emissions has levelled off since the initial post-reunification reduction:
Its only 2.8 trillion euros…NOW, but by the time its finished it will be a minimum 5.6T and that will have to be paid by people who actually work and produce things.
The 95% reduction is relatively easy to achieve and at a lower cost than forecast. Just shut down all industry and emigrate the fit and able to countries that have not hobbled their economies. Send money back home so the elderly and disabled can continue to import the goods needed to sustain their lives.
China will continue to use coal and nuclear fuels to make the shrines that the Global Warming worshippers need to power their meagre existence; essentially free of the evils of CO2.
It saddens me that I will not get to see how this plays out.
I think I might see what happens in Venezuela.
And also Moonbeam Brown’s slow train to nowhere.
Unless Germany gets on a steeper glide path, the “Eve of Destruction” [Barry McGuire] is just too far out for me.
You may see how it finally plays out in Venezuela
I saw the words ‘In Germany up to 2.3 trillion euros additionally have to be invested…’ and laughed. The Energiewende is not any form of ‘investment’, it is a huge religious tax and subsidy boondoggle. Take away the regulations, subsidies and taxes and it would collapse overnight. I know a few Germans, and they are well educated and smart. But they are all over 60. Something has seriously gone wrong in Germany since they were educated 40 years ago.
At this rate they would be better off burning the subsidy money.
You would probably get more energy. Than you get from wind and solar.
The education problem is Europe wide if not western worldwide.
John F: Unless you are in ill-health, you and I may well see this play out – all it will take is a decent multi-national economic recession, which by my reckoning is well overdue. Then the dominoes will fall, and politicians will have real problems to address, instead of having to invest bogey men. I hope DJT is up to it. Meantime, keep well.
Says it all!
All this theory (AGW) is a madness sindrome, that speculators are riding to make their daily life. In the meantime, one third of world population are living terrible and miserable conditio , having not yet access to sound energy sources. Ehen the Pope will wake up and attack this unacceptable ethic and moral scamdal?
A different perspective.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
My website is
“Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.
Awaiting court decision in Dr Andrew Weaver vs Dr Tim Ball in Supreme Court, in Vancouver, BC
Thank you for the excellent info, Dr. Ball.
Best wishes for a successful outcome for you in court.
This is from the study: “Additional investment of around 1.5 trillion euros would be necessary to cut emissions 80 percent by 2050, according to the study…”:
Even that worked out at £1.32 trillion over 32 years between 82.67 million men, women and children is £500 per year for every one of them. For what?????
[…] P. Gosselin, January 20, 2018 in […]
OT, …but only slightly, IMO.
Here is a mini-study on 100% renewables: We know that wind turbines produce 1/3 of their name plate on an annual basis, and solar produce 1/3 to 1/6 (depending on latitude). This means that 100% electricity from renewables needs at least 300% installed capacity of renewables plus another 100% capacity for back up from conventional for a total of 400% grid installed capacity. Would this solve the problem? Off course not. Both solar and wind need to be replaced every 20 years. So 15% of our electric energy infrastructure needs to be replaced annually. I have made rough computations of CO2 emissions for renewables construction and have found it to be 1000 tonnes of CO2/MW (=/-100) installed capacity
This is why Germany’s CO2 emissions are not going down during the last 10 years. They started their energiewente 30 years ago. Then they need to replace all the renewables installed 20 years earlier. Consider that The wind turbines need to replace also the towers and concrete foundation due to vibration induced fatigue cracking.
So Germany has reached a flat in their CO2 emissions at 26% renewables. I will not be surprised if CO2 starts now increasing as more renewables are included in their grid system.
As far as I am concerned it is a PONZI SCHEME both in terms of money spent and CO2. Both increase.
I saw recently that China’s CO2 output increased by 4% last year.
I’m glad Germany thinks a tiny reduction by the wasting all their money driving more industry to China and other coal-expanding Asian countries will “save the world”. 🙂
[…] Read More Infos here: notrickszone.com/2018/01/20/new-study-german-agreed-2050-co2-reductions-could-cost-astronomical-2-8-trillion-by-2050/ […]