In order to comply with the globalist “Net Zero” climate goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and United Nations (UN), taxpayers will need to spend a staggering $75 trillion, a group of leading analysts has revealed.
To put the figure into context, in 2023, it is estimated that the total amount of money in circulation around the world is roughly $40 trillion.
And Stephen will still us that net zero is cheaper.
But is it really really cheaper?
ScottW
In order to comply with the globalist “Net Zero” climate goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and United Nations (UN), taxpayers will need to spend a staggering $75 trillion, a group of leading analysts has revealed.
To put the figure into context, in 2023, it is estimated that the total amount of money in circulation around the world is roughly $40 trillion.
And Stephen will still us that net zero is cheaper.
But is it really really cheaper?
On 16/09/2023 8:42 am, ScottW wrote:
In order to comply with the globalist “Net Zero” climate goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and United Nations (UN), taxpayers will need to spend a staggering $75 trillion, a group of leading analysts has revealed.**Here is an alternate figure:
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
To put the figure into context, in 2023, it is estimated that the total amount of money in circulation around the world is roughly $40 trillion.**You seem to be operating under the delusion that humanity has a choice.
We don't.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:00:54 AM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/09/2023 8:42 am, ScottW wrote:
In order to comply with the globalist “Net Zero” climate goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and United Nations (UN), taxpayers will need to spend a staggering $75 trillion, a group of leading analysts has revealed.**Here is an alternate figure:
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
**You seem to be operating under the delusion that humanity has a choice.
To put the figure into context, in 2023, it is estimated that the total amount of money in circulation around the world is roughly $40 trillion.
We don't.
You're right. $75 Trillion is not a choice we can make.
The end is inevitable.
Party on.
On 9/16/23 12:37 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:00:54 AM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/09/2023 8:42 am, ScottW wrote:
In order to comply with the globalist “Net Zero” climate goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and United Nations (UN), taxpayers will need to spend a staggering $75 trillion, a group of leading analysts has revealed.**Here is an alternate figure:
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
**You seem to be operating under the delusion that humanity has a choice. >>
To put the figure into context, in 2023, it is estimated that the total amount of money in circulation around the world is roughly $40 trillion.
We don't.
You're right. $75 Trillion is not a choice we can make.
The end is inevitable.
Party on.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction
Reactionary narratives:
"Hirschman describes the reactionary narratives thus:
According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve
some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy (compare: Unintended consequences).
The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will
be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent."
Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed
change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment.
He argues that these are "rhetorics of intransigence", which do not
further debate."
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 10:50:37 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 9/16/23 12:37 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:00:54 AM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 16/09/2023 8:42 am, ScottW wrote:
The end is inevitable.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction
Party on.
Reactionary narratives:
"Hirschman describes the reactionary narratives thus:
According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve
some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to
exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy (compare: Unintended
consequences).
The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will
be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent."
Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed
change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious
accomplishment.
He argues that these are "rhetorics of intransigence", which do not
further debate."
And yet I hear the debate on AGW is over.
Which one ended it...perversity, futility or jeopardy?
Anyway, We're gonna tip....probably have already. It happened on Joe's watch.
ScottW
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:00:54 AM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/09/2023 8:42 am, ScottW wrote:
In order to comply with the globalist “Net Zero” climate goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and United Nations (UN), taxpayers will need to spend a staggering $75 trillion, a group of leading analysts has revealed.**Here is an alternate figure:
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
**You seem to be operating under the delusion that humanity has a choice.
To put the figure into context, in 2023, it is estimated that the total amount of money in circulation around the world is roughly $40 trillion.
We don't.
You're right. $75 Trillion is not a choice we can make.
The end is inevitable.
Party on.
On 17/09/2023 3:37 am, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:00:54 AM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 16/09/2023 8:42 am, ScottW wrote:
In order to comply with the globalist “Net Zero” climate goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and United Nations (UN), taxpayers will need to spend a staggering $75 trillion, a group of leading analysts has revealed.**Here is an alternate figure:
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
**You seem to be operating under the delusion that humanity has a choice. >>
To put the figure into context, in 2023, it is estimated that the total amount of money in circulation around the world is roughly $40 trillion.
We don't.
You're right. $75 Trillion is not a choice we can make.**From my cite:
"On the basis of this scenario, we estimate that global spending on
physical assets in the transition would amount to about $275 trillion between 2021 and 2050, or about 7.5 percent of GDP annually on average."
So, whilst expensive, it is affordable.
However, if you recall, I've
been explaining to you for more than 20 years, that the longer we delay,
the more it will cost.
TODAY, we can afford it. We will not likely be
able to afford it by the end of the decade.
Had we been listening to the
IPCC in the early 1990s, the cost of change may well have been insignificant. It is no longer.
The end is inevitable.
Party on.**Typical.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 3:46:21 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/09/2023 3:37 am, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:00:54 AM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 16/09/2023 8:42 am, ScottW wrote:**From my cite:
In order to comply with the globalist “Net Zero” climate goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and United Nations (UN), taxpayers will need to spend a staggering $75 trillion, a group of leading analysts has revealed.**Here is an alternate figure:
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
**You seem to be operating under the delusion that humanity has a choice. >>>>
To put the figure into context, in 2023, it is estimated that the total amount of money in circulation around the world is roughly $40 trillion.
We don't.
You're right. $75 Trillion is not a choice we can make.
"On the basis of this scenario, we estimate that global spending on
physical assets in the transition would amount to about $275 trillion
between 2021 and 2050, or about 7.5 percent of GDP annually on average."
If you start spending that level of GDP on stuff that doesn't provide any real return on investment...how long before GDP declines as a result?
Looks like world wide growth is about 3-4% on average. So diverting 7.5%
is going to have an immediate and substantial impact.
So, whilst expensive, it is affordable.
LoL...7.5% is about twice the current savings rate of the US.
What you're saying is just random hope without thought.
However, if you recall, I've
been explaining to you for more than 20 years, that the longer we delay,
the more it will cost.
Yet you supported the BS and totally counterproductive Paris accords.
TODAY, we can afford it. We will not likely be
able to afford it by the end of the decade.
Well....since there is no way in hell that it's going to happen in this or any decade...and without it we're doomed....you've scored a twofer.
Futility and jeopardy.
Had we been listening to the
IPCC in the early 1990s, the cost of change may well have been
insignificant. It is no longer.
Yeah...Y2K got in the way.
**Typical.
The end is inevitable.
Party on.
Go ahead and cry if you want to.
BTW...did you buy an electric car in 1990?
On 17/09/2023 12:55 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 3:46:21 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/09/2023 3:37 am, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:00:54 AM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:**From my cite:
On 16/09/2023 8:42 am, ScottW wrote:
In order to comply with the globalist “Net Zero” climate goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and United Nations (UN), taxpayers will need to spend a staggering $75 trillion, a group of leading analysts has revealed.**Here is an alternate figure:
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
**You seem to be operating under the delusion that humanity has a choice.
To put the figure into context, in 2023, it is estimated that the total amount of money in circulation around the world is roughly $40 trillion.
We don't.
You're right. $75 Trillion is not a choice we can make.
"On the basis of this scenario, we estimate that global spending on
physical assets in the transition would amount to about $275 trillion
between 2021 and 2050, or about 7.5 percent of GDP annually on average."
If you start spending that level of GDP on stuff that doesn't provide any real return on investment...how long before GDP declines as a result? Looks like world wide growth is about 3-4% on average. So diverting 7.5% is going to have an immediate and substantial impact.**So is global warming you idiot.
And, global warming is getting worse.
It has been theorised by a bunch of guys way smarter than me, that, when atmospheric CO2 concentration hits around 500ppm, that there will be
nothing we can do to prevent runaway global warming.
We should be
spending shit-loads of cash to avoid this possibility.
So, whilst expensive, it is affordable.
LoL...7.5% is about twice the current savings rate of the US.**No. It's 7.5% of GDP. It's difficult, but affordable.
What you're saying is just random hope without thought.
However, if you recall, I've
been explaining to you for more than 20 years, that the longer we delay, >> the more it will cost.
Yet you supported the BS and totally counterproductive Paris accords.**The Paris accord was not counterproductive. It was highly flawed.
And,
once more: I've been warning you about this issue for more than 20
years. Had we acted 20 years ago, we would not be facing such a huge
bill. Yet, you failed to listen.
Just like you are right now.
TODAY, we can afford it. We will not likely be
able to afford it by the end of the decade.
Well....since there is no way in hell that it's going to happen in this or any decade...and without it we're doomed....you've scored a twofer. Futility and jeopardy.**Obviously, you have no offspring to be concerned about.
You are just a
selfish cunt.
Had we been listening to the
IPCC in the early 1990s, the cost of change may well have been
insignificant. It is no longer.
Yeah...Y2K got in the way.**No, it did not. y2k was a minor annoyance.
**Typical.
The end is inevitable.
Party on.
Go ahead and cry if you want to.**Nope. I did then, what I do today, I walk, cycle or catch public
BTW...did you buy an electric car in 1990?
transport where possible. I drive less than 5,000km/year.
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 11:52:20 PM UTC-4, Trevor Wilson wrote:
and he uses scads of energy.**So is global warming you idiot. And, global warming is getting worse.Such a low bar. it still means they are idiots, but
It has been theorised by a bunch of guys way smarter than me,
idiots way smarter than you.
**Obviously, you have no offspring to be concerned about. You are just a selfish cunt.
I CAN VOUCH FOR HIS OFFSPRING
**So is global warming you idiot. And, global warming is getting worse.
It has been theorised by a bunch of guys way smarter than me,
**Obviously, you have no offspring to be concerned about. You are just a selfish cunt.
**Nope. I did then, what I do today, I walk, cycle or catch public
transport where possible. I drive less than 5,000km/year.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:52:20 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/09/2023 12:55 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 3:46:21 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 17/09/2023 3:37 am, ScottW wrote:**So is global warming you idiot.
If you start spending that level of GDP on stuff that doesn't provide any >>> real return on investment...how long before GDP declines as a result?On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:00:54 AM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:**From my cite:
On 16/09/2023 8:42 am, ScottW wrote:
In order to comply with the globalist “Net Zero” climate goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and United Nations (UN), taxpayers will need to spend a staggering $75 trillion, a group of leading analysts has revealed.**Here is an alternate figure:
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
**You seem to be operating under the delusion that humanity has a choice.
To put the figure into context, in 2023, it is estimated that the total amount of money in circulation around the world is roughly $40 trillion.
We don't.
You're right. $75 Trillion is not a choice we can make.
"On the basis of this scenario, we estimate that global spending on
physical assets in the transition would amount to about $275 trillion
between 2021 and 2050, or about 7.5 percent of GDP annually on average." >>>
Looks like world wide growth is about 3-4% on average. So diverting 7.5% >>> is going to have an immediate and substantial impact.
We'll see. Between sea temps, natural methane releases, and now the antarctic ice
sheet not freezing this winter....we're likely way past any irreversible tipping point.
I'm just going with your decades of past warnings. I'm going with the science.
And, global warming is getting worse.
Yup....and Australia is gonna get really really hot.
https://theconversation.com/seriously-ugly-heres-how-australia-will-look-if-the-world-heats-by-3-c-this-century-157875
It has been theorised by a bunch of guys way smarter than me, that, when
atmospheric CO2 concentration hits around 500ppm, that there will be
nothing we can do to prevent runaway global warming.
Nah...they missed it. 400 PPM has already unleashed natural sources of methane.
It will take it from here regardless of the Co2 levels.
We should be
spending shit-loads of cash to avoid this possibility.
Yeah...on air conditioning and deep cave dwellings.
**No. It's 7.5% of GDP. It's difficult, but affordable.
So, whilst expensive, it is affordable.
LoL...7.5% is about twice the current savings rate of the US.
What you're saying is just random hope without thought.
It's assured bankruptcy of the US and world wide economic destruction.
Other than that...no problem.
**The Paris accord was not counterproductive. It was highly flawed.
However, if you recall, I've
been explaining to you for more than 20 years, that the longer we delay, >>>> the more it will cost.
Yet you supported the BS and totally counterproductive Paris accords.
and yet it was touted as the solution for decades. A solution that IPCC said was
inadequate and insufficient to meet goals and much of the world didn't even comply with those
inadequate goals. And you said we needed to act then to reduce cost....not now when it is much more costly.
So, in hindsight, it seems the Paris Accords were a huge mistake. A waste of precious time.
Yet you still claim they weren't counterproductive. Very odd.
And,
once more: I've been warning you about this issue for more than 20
years. Had we acted 20 years ago, we would not be facing such a huge
bill. Yet, you failed to listen.
I listened.
They didn't. You didn't. I was right.
So we'll have to endure ...or die trying to endure the consequences.
Just like you are right now.
I am right now.
**Obviously, you have no offspring to be concerned about.
TODAY, we can afford it. We will not likely be
able to afford it by the end of the decade.
Well....since there is no way in hell that it's going to happen in this or >>> any decade...and without it we're doomed....you've scored a twofer.
Futility and jeopardy.
Actually I do.
And the ones of their generation who do act stupidly and oppose everything that might help.
Still Biden's program for change isn't working as he lies about costs and economic impact etc.
I've said we can't be dumping costs on the back of consumers while telling 'em it's actually cheaper.
They won't accept it. Biden is most likely going to get his ass handed to him and neither party will
be willing to push this again for a decade or more. Which is far too late. So Biden was the only real shot and
he f'd it up so bad no one will be trying again anytime soon.
You are just a
selfish cunt.
Says the guy who still drives a gas guzzler for fun.
I'll bet I haven't flown half as many miles as you have in the last decade.
**No, it did not. y2k was a minor annoyance.
Had we been listening to the
IPCC in the early 1990s, the cost of change may well have been
insignificant. It is no longer.
Yeah...Y2K got in the way.
All it took. You weren't gluing yourself to anything in 1990 were you?
**Nope. I did then, what I do today, I walk, cycle or catch public
**Typical.
The end is inevitable.
Party on.
Go ahead and cry if you want to.
BTW...did you buy an electric car in 1990?
transport where possible. I drive less than 5,000km/year.
So you still drive when you have to no matter what it does to the planet. You're a shit.
On 17/09/2023 2:25 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 8:52:20 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 17/09/2023 12:55 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 3:46:21 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:**So is global warming you idiot.
On 17/09/2023 3:37 am, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 2:00:54 AM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote:**From my cite:
On 16/09/2023 8:42 am, ScottW wrote:
In order to comply with the globalist “Net Zero” climate goals of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and United Nations (UN), taxpayers will need to spend a staggering $75 trillion, a group of leading analysts has revealed.**Here is an alternate figure:
https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
**You seem to be operating under the delusion that humanity has a choice.
To put the figure into context, in 2023, it is estimated that the total amount of money in circulation around the world is roughly $40 trillion.
We don't.
You're right. $75 Trillion is not a choice we can make.
"On the basis of this scenario, we estimate that global spending on >>>> physical assets in the transition would amount to about $275 trillion >>>> between 2021 and 2050, or about 7.5 percent of GDP annually on average."
If you start spending that level of GDP on stuff that doesn't provide any
real return on investment...how long before GDP declines as a result? >>> Looks like world wide growth is about 3-4% on average. So diverting 7.5% >>> is going to have an immediate and substantial impact.
We'll see. Between sea temps, natural methane releases, and now the antarctic ice**You may be correct. Which is why you should have been listening to me
sheet not freezing this winter....we're likely way past any irreversible tipping point.
20 years ago.
You should have voted for politicians who were trying to
deal with the problem, rather than selfish arseholes in the Republican party.
I'm just going with your decades of past warnings. I'm going with the science.
And, global warming is getting worse.
Yup....and Australia is gonna get really really hot.**No doubt.
https://theconversation.com/seriously-ugly-heres-how-australia-will-look-if-the-world-heats-by-3-c-this-century-157875
It has been theorised by a bunch of guys way smarter than me, that, when >> atmospheric CO2 concentration hits around 500ppm, that there will be
nothing we can do to prevent runaway global warming.
Nah...they missed it. 400 PPM has already unleashed natural sources of methane.**Maybe. here is considerable argument about that. Either way, doing
It will take it from here regardless of the Co2 levels.
nothing is not an option.
We should be
spending shit-loads of cash to avoid this possibility.
Yeah...on air conditioning and deep cave dwellings.**No. Reducing CO2 and methane emissions.
**No. It's 7.5% of GDP. It's difficult, but affordable.
So, whilst expensive, it is affordable.
LoL...7.5% is about twice the current savings rate of the US.
What you're saying is just random hope without thought.
It's assured bankruptcy of the US and world wide economic destruction.**Nonsense.
Other than that...no problem.
**The Paris accord was not counterproductive. It was highly flawed.
However, if you recall, I've
been explaining to you for more than 20 years, that the longer we delay,
the more it will cost.
Yet you supported the BS and totally counterproductive Paris accords.
and yet it was touted as the solution for decades. A solution that IPCC said was**Then why would you continue to vote for politicians who have been
inadequate and insufficient to meet goals and much of the world didn't even comply with those
inadequate goals. And you said we needed to act then to reduce cost....not now when it is much more costly.
wrong all along?
So, in hindsight, it seems the Paris Accords were a huge mistake. A waste of precious time.**Paris was better than doing nothing.
Yet you still claim they weren't counterproductive. Very odd.
And,
once more: I've been warning you about this issue for more than 20
years. Had we acted 20 years ago, we would not be facing such a huge
bill. Yet, you failed to listen.
I listened.**Clearly, you did not. You keep voting for Republicans. The Republican Party is the party of climate change deniers.
I told you then as I tell you now, humanity wasn't then and isn't
going to act against their current personal interests.
They didn't. You didn't. I was right.
So we'll have to endure ...or die trying to endure the consequences.
Just like you are right now.
I am right now.
**Obviously, you have no offspring to be concerned about.
TODAY, we can afford it. We will not likely be
able to afford it by the end of the decade.
Well....since there is no way in hell that it's going to happen in this or
any decade...and without it we're doomed....you've scored a twofer.
Futility and jeopardy.
Actually I do.**Then your selfishness unforgivable.
And they won't do what it takes.
And the ones of their generation who do act stupidly and oppose everything that might help.**It's WAY better than anything Trump has presented. Trump rolled back
Still Biden's program for change isn't working as he lies about costs and economic impact etc.
CO2 reduction schemes.
I've said we can't be dumping costs on the back of consumers while telling 'em it's actually cheaper.**Actually, that is not what I've been reading. Biden's plan is a good
They won't accept it. Biden is most likely going to get his ass handed to him and neither party will
be willing to push this again for a decade or more. Which is far too late. So Biden was the only real shot and
he f'd it up so bad no one will be trying again anytime soon.
one and will set the US up very nicely for the future.
You are just a
selfish cunt.
Says the guy who still drives a gas guzzler for fun.**Not really.
I'll bet I haven't flown half as many miles as you have in the last decade.**I flew (for business) to Cairns two weeks ago. I paid the extra to
offset my CO2 emissions.
Prior to that, I have not flown anywhere since
1999.
**No, it did not. y2k was a minor annoyance.
Had we been listening to the
IPCC in the early 1990s, the cost of change may well have been
insignificant. It is no longer.
Yeah...Y2K got in the way.
All it took. You weren't gluing yourself to anything in 1990 were you?**Nope. Why should I?
**Nope. I did then, what I do today, I walk, cycle or catch public
**Typical.
The end is inevitable.
Party on.
Go ahead and cry if you want to.
BTW...did you buy an electric car in 1990?
transport where possible. I drive less than 5,000km/year.
So you still drive when you have to no matter what it does to the planet. You're a shit.**Sure, but I am way shitty than you.
**You may be correct. Which is why you should have been listening to me
20 years ago. You should have voted for politicians who were trying to
deal with the problem, rather than selfish arseholes in the Republican party.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 39:07:11 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,185 |