Delingpole: $58 Trillion – 290 Apollo Programs – to ‘Combat’ Climate Change. This Is Beyond a Joke…

30Th Anniversary Of Apollo 11 Landing On The Moon (9 Of 20): Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin Jr., Lunar Module Pilot, Is Photographed Walking Near The Lunar Module During The Apollo 11 Extravehicular Activity. Man's First Landing On The Moon Occurred Today At 4:17 P.M. July 20, 1969 As Lunar Module …

‘Climate Change’ – the most grotesquely expensive fraud in the history of the world – just got a heap load more expensive. So eye-wateringly, crazily, stupidly expensive that it dwarfs every scientific endeavor there has ever been, even such ventures as the Manhattan Project to build the atom bomb and the Apollo program to put man on the moon…

Let’s start modestly with one recent estimate of the cost of implementing the UN Paris Accord: according to this report by S & P Global Market Intelligence it will cost at least $5.2 trillion.

But wait. It gets worse. Much, much worse…

That modest $5.2 trillion is only if you add up the promises made by around 60 of the 189 countries which signed up to the deal. With two thirds of the signatory nations still to submit their financial estimates of “decarbonizing” their economies, that means the eventual bill will be considerably higher.

According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance the cost will be $12.7 trillion.

According to Al Gore’s Energy Transitions Commission , it’s $15 trillion.

But the estimate produced by the Steyer-Taylor Center at Stanford may be closest to the mark, however, because it comes from sources closest to the belly of the green beast.

As Daily Caller reports:

The Steyer-Taylor Center was founded in 2010 by billionaire investor Tom Steyer and his wife, Kat Taylor. Steyer was the single largest political donor in the 2016 election cycle, giving $91 million to Democrats and liberal causes.

And the total cost of achieving the UN Paris Accord’s goal of keeping the global temperature rise by the end of the century to below 2 degrees C?

$2.3 trillion a year.

A total of $58 trillion over the next 25 years.

The report emphasizes that attracting $2.3 trillion every year requires governments to “derisk” in green energy investments, which the report says can be done with policies like carbon taxes, energy mandates and subsidies that curb fossil fuel use. Analysts based their findings on International Energy Information claims on what’s needed to stave off “dangerous” global warming.

To “decarbonize” the global economy, the report says $58 trillion needs to be invested in green energy technologies, including “energy efficiency, the full range of renewables, nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, natural gas, cogeneration, as well as key enabling technologies including transmission, storage, and demand response.”

While we’re fist-rubbing our eyes in gobsmacked disbelief let’s do some comparisons here.

The Manhattan Project to build the atom bomb cost $2.2 billion of taxpayer dollars in 1945, the equivalent of about $30 billion today.

The Apollo Program to put man on the moon cost $25.4 billion of taxpayer dollars up to 1973, the equivalent of around $200 billion today.

$1 trillion is $1,000 billion dollars.

So, if my math is correct, we are being asked by Tom “Rhymes with Liar” Steyer and his green rent-seeking pals and the one world government freaks at the UN to gamble the equivalent of 290 Apollo Missions on the unproven theory that CO2 acts as the control knob for global climate.

Does that sound to you like good value for money?

Or does that maybe give you a better insight into why it was that President Trump quit the Paris Climate Accord?

He’s a businessman. He knows a bad deal when he sees one.

Then again, you don’t even need to be a businessman to see that $58 trillion squandered on the off chance that the planet might warm a bit less is not a great investment.

You might even start asking awkward questions like: “Hang on. Who even made this rule that we have to keep global warming below 2 degrees C by the end of the century? What if the benefits of a warmer planet outweigh the costs? And what if the planet’s climate mechanisms are so powerful they will always dwarf any attempts by humans to try to regulate it?”

Depends how far down the rabbit hole you want to go.

One thing’s for certain and it can’t be said often enough: when Trump pulled the U.S. out of Paris, the American economy just dodged one almighty bullet.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.