Skip to comments.Yearly Climate Change Spending 10x More Than UN Estimate for Ending World Hunger
Posted on 02/13/2014 11:00:38 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The United Nations estimates it would cost $30 billion a year  to end world hunger. That sounds like a lot, but the world spent more than ten times that amount in 2012 on global warming mitigation, according to a recent Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) study .
And the U.N. says the world needs to spend even more on global warming mitigation. Much more.
According to the Reuters analysis  of the Summary for Policymakers of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes Fifth Assessment Report, due to be released this April, the UN is calling on the world to invest an extra $147 billion a year in wind, solar, and nuclear power from 2010 to 2029. If we add that figure to CPIs measure, the UN wants us to spend approximately $506 billion a year to mitigate global warming,
According to the UN, this amount would end world hunger for nearly 20 years.
Its important to ask what sort of return we can expect from these investments. As the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change reports , the human effect on climate is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs.
If governments were any good at generating returns on their spending of taxpayer money, they would have been investing in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies in the 1980s. Far and away, such investment would have generated the best returns, both financially and in terms of carbon dioxide mitigation.
According to a new report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  (NOAA), CO2 emissions from U.S. fossil-fuel power plants were 23% lower in 2012 than they would have been without the increased use of natural gas produced from hydraulic fracturing.
Neither big government nor big business sparked this boom. Most if not all of the five major integrated oil and gas companies did not predict the great increase in shale gas development as a result of the technological breakthroughs with smart drilling and hydraulic fracturing. The pioneers were the industrys small to midsize companies.
Ironically, not only does the UN call on the worlds governments to spend much more on renewable energy and other warming mitigation initiatives, they also want fossil fuel energy investments to be reduced by $30 billion annually. Yet the latest energy breakthrough was a fossil fuel technology thats doing more to lower carbon dioxide emissions than any other action.
Ideally, government investment in all energy sources would be reduced to zero. That would expedite the next technological breakthrough. As Vaclav Smil wrote for Scientific American :
Governments cannot foresee which promising research and development activities will make it first to the free market, and hence they should not keep picking apparent winners only to abandon them soon for the next fashionable option.
Smil says governments do this because they base their policy-making on wishful thinking rather than realistic expectations.
This is exacerbated by the vague and idealistic nature of the strategy for investing in low-carbon technologies. Imagine asking your financial advisor what to do with your retirement portfolio and all he or she says is to invest in stocks. Youd have plenty of room for error. In calling for investment in low-carbon technologies, the U.N. and its U.S. adherents basically tell us to invest as much as we can get the taxpayers to bear. As to what portfolio of technologies to spend on, were given no cost-benefit analysis of returns on investment, only vague promises that wind and solar will become more efficient if we spend more. Yet they are so far away from ever competing with fossil fuels that the spending so far has been basically wasted.
Consider, for example, the U.S. Department of Energys Section 1705 Loan Guarantee program. A December 2013 Reason Foundation study  found 22 of the 26 companies that received the loan guarantees were rated as junk grade investments or lower, and the other four were rated as low class. The researchers found 83 percent of such investments went directly to solar, ignoring the fundamental investment strategy of diversification by betting all the available taxpayer funds on a single technology with the smallest market share. When the researchers dug deeper to see how this came to be, they found the taxpayer funds were allocated in proportion to the recipients lobbying expenditures. The loan allocations had more to do with political connections than the companies merit.
If there is a significant public interest in changing the nations energy production, governments should invest their taxpayers hard-earned money only in energy forms that are scientifically proven to accomplish real increases in productivity and the climate-reduction goals they are pursuing (however unwisely). Jumping from one fad to the next wastes taxpayer money and distorts an industry thats central to the nations economy and peoples well-being.
Taylor Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org ) is a policy analyst at The Heartland Institute.
That’s because fake global warming is profitable while feeding the hungry goes against their objective of population reduction.
If more people starve to death, then there will be fewer breathing and producing CO2, thus reducing glowbull warming. Also fewer to use natural resources.
(the above said with 200% sarcasm of globulwamers.)
So that ‘Oil for Food’ program the UN had...how’s that working?
Global Warming made lots of money for budding Junk scientists such Algore.
Climate Change is showing great promise of bilking more money out of taxpayers than the war mists ever dreamed of.
The Mother Lode for the temperature parasites is, of course, WEATHER CHANGE.
Weather Change happens every taxpayer day of the year! Sometimes Weather Change changes when the Official Government Regulated Weather Bureau said that it wouldn’t change!
More Obamainvestments need to be made to insure that all the bunch of folks get a fair shot at no disparity of weather change under the ACA!
That’s how it is with the RACIST, Population Control crowd.
They want the resources of the Earth retained for the elite.
They don’t want the “3rd world” populations controlling their own resources.
That’s why they won’t let them devlelop meaningful;
- Energy Production,
- Malaria Control,
- Food Production,
- Mineral Production,
- Petroleum Production,
- Aids Control,
- Broader Health improvements,
USA and the entire world is become a freak show; multi-dimensional.
Saving the climate gets them money. Saving the hungry makes them spend money. Obvious to me.
The science is settled. Global warming is a scam of unbelievable profitability.