Skip to content

UN Calls For $2.4 Trillion A Year To Be Spent To Save Us From Global Warming

October 9, 2018

By Paul Homewood

So the pretence that Paris solved any problems has finally been exposed as a lie. And the IPCC have had to present us with the bill for what they want us to do.


From Bloomberg:


Climate Crisis Spurs UN Call for $2.4 Trillion Fossil Fuel Shift

By Reed Landberg , Chisaki Watanabe , and Heesu Lee

The world must invest $2.4 trillion in clean energy every year through 2035 and cut the use of coal-fired power to almost nothing by 2050 to avoid catastrophic damage from climate change, according to scientists convened by the United Nations.

Their report published Monday adds pressure on policymakers and businesses to step up their response to global warming, which is boosting sea levels, making storms more violent and exacerbating poverty. The atmosphere is already almost 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) hotter than it was at the start of the industrial revolution and on track to rise 3 degrees by 2100, according to the report. That’s double the pace targeted under the 2015 Paris climate agreements endorsed by almost 200 nations.

Chart from IPCC’s report shows observed temperatures through 2017 and scenarios to limit further warming.Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“We are already seeing the consequences of 1 degree of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice,” said Panmao Zhai, one of the co-chairs of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which brought together the work of hundreds of researchers and thousands of scientific papers.

To read more about the international debate about climate change, click here.

Even a rise of 1.5 degrees would have massive consequences, including a “multi-meter rise in sea levels” over hundreds to thousands of years and a mass extinction of plants and animals. With a temperature increase of that scale, of the 105,000 species studied, 6 percent of insects, 8 percent of plants and 4 percent of vertebrates lose half their habitat. Those proportions double with a 2 degree gain.

Envoys at the 2015 Paris talks asked the IPCC to study what it would take to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, a more ambitious goal than the previous 2-degree target. The scientists concluded that carbon dioxide emissions should be cut 45 percent by 2030 from 2010 levels then reduced to zero by 2050. That would require “unprecedented changes in all aspects of society,” most especially within the energy industry. The report acknowledged those changes would be difficult and costly, but not impossible.

Deployment Constraints

“These systems transitions are unprecedented in terms of scale, but not necessarily in terms of speed, and imply deep emissions reductions in all sectors,” the IPCC said in the report. “These options are technically proven at various scales, but their large-scale deployment may be limited by economic, financial, human capacity and institutional constraints.’’

To limit warming to 1.5 degrees would require a roughly fivefold increase in average annual investment in low-carbon energy technologies by 2050, compared with 2015, according to the report.

The $2.4 trillion needed annually through 2035 is also an almost sevenfold increase from the $333.5 billion Bloomberg NEF estimated was invested in renewable energy last year. The International Energy Agency says about $1.8 trillion was invested in energy systems in 2017, down 2 percent from the year before. About $750 billion went to electricity and $715 billion to oil and gas.

The IPCC report also recommended that by 2050:
  • Coal’s share of electricity supply should be cut to 2 percent or less.
  • Renewables should supply 70 percent to 85 percent of power generation.
  • Carbon capture and storage technology should be deployed to absorb remaining fossil-fuel emissions.
  • Natural gas could maintain an 8 percent share of electricity generation if CCS reduced total global net emissions to zero by 2050.

Those ambitions would mark a massive upheaval to the energy system, with coal currently accounting for about 37 percent of power and gas at 24 percent, according to the International Energy Agency.

Electricity Generation by Source

Coal dominates, but renewables including hydro are gaining share

Source: International Energy Agency’s WEO 2017

The IPCC’s proposals are bolder than the most-ambitious scenario set out by the IEA. The Paris-based institution envisioned coal maintaining 6 percent share of the power generation market and gas 16 percent by 2040 under one pathway that’s compatible with 2 degrees of warming.

“We assess the scientific information and then provide policy-relevant messages to our member governments as well as the relevant stakeholders,” Hoesung Lee, chairman of the IPCC, said in an interview. “We provide a manual of solutions. It’s up to them to use this manual, considering the constraints or opportunities existing in different countries. It’s their decision, but we provide the scientific information.”

Organizations and investors that back green energy said the report makes it clear that the world should accelerate the shift away from coal, the most polluting fossil fuel.

“The coal industry has no role in a climate-stable world,” said Jan Erik Saugestad, chief executive officer of Norway’s Storebrand Asset Management, which oversees $88 billion. “It’s our pressing duty to call on other investors to end meaningless engagement with coal-exposed companies.”

The report also highlights the risk to further investments in natural gas-fired power plants and suggests that more of them should be replaced by renewables, said Han Chen, who follows energy finance for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“Large quantities of current gas plants will need to be retired early, while those under construction or in planning stages must be reconsidered immediately as they are not compatible with the 1.5-degree future,” Chen said.

Chart from IPCC’s report shows CO2 emissions for various scenarios to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The World Coal Association noted the IEA and other forecasters expect the fuel to remain an important part of the energy system for the foreseeable future. That would make it crucial to expand carbon capture projects, which siphon the gas off from smokestacks and store it permanently underground.

“Any credible pathway to meeting the 1.5 degree scenario must focus on emissions rather than fuel,” Katie Warrick, interim chief executive officer of the WCA, said after reviewing a draft of the report.

Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News and its parent company Bloomberg LP, is a UN Special Envoy for Climate Action.

The IPCC report was meant to ring alarm bells about global warming, noting that temperatures are likely to be 1.5 degrees higher by 2030 to 2052 based on current commitments to reduce emissions made under the Paris deal. While an increase of that magnitude would boost sea levels by as much as 77 centimeters by the end of the century, that would be about 10 centimeters lower than at 2 degrees, the report said.


 $2.4 Trillion a year! And even this won’t alter the fact that the world cannot run a modern economy with intermittent renewable energy, even if we spent ten times as much.
Given that the bulk of the world’s emissions now come from the developing world, I think it is fair to say that they won’t be paying any of this.
And given that the developed nations are struggling to find more than a few billion for “climate aid” , I cannot see us doing so either.
So what is the point of this whole exercise?
Is the objective of the UN and the green lobby to scare us all into abandoning our modern lifestyles and the capitalist system upon which they depend?
Why on earth would anybody care about a half a degree or so of warming over a century, which they could not possibly even notice if they were not told about it?
So, step forward the IPCC’s propaganda division.
Remember that the 1.5c of warming is not from now, but from the Little Ice Age. So for their scare tactics to work, they must convince us that the degree of warming we have already had has been disastrous:
We are already seeing the consequences of 1 degree of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice,” said Panmao Zhai, one of the co-chairs of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which brought together the work of hundreds of researchers and thousands of scientific papers.
In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that there is more extreme weather. Sea levels have been rising steadily since the late 19thC, long before CO2 had any effect. And nobody has explained why less Arctic sea ice should be a problem at all.
Indeed, most of the evidence suggests that the world’s climate is actually more benign than in those earlier times.
Weather has never been perfect, but surely it is not beyond the wit of mankind to mitigate its worst effects, and at a much lower cost than $2.4 Trillion a year.
Particularly when the alternative is to return us all to the dark ages?
  1. BLACK PEARL permalink
    October 9, 2018 10:58 pm

    0.01 % increase in CO2 in a 160 years has become a problem !
    What ever happened to common sense ?

    • HotScot permalink
      October 9, 2018 11:07 pm


      Whatever happened to a reality check by the IPCC?

      They are so out of touch with humanity they cant see what’s happening, Brexit and Trump as standard bearers.

      The general public will look at these numbers and scoff. The IPCC has lost all sense of reality and simply goes on totting up numbers in the hope that the bigger they are, the more compliant the public will become.

      And the opposite is true. Targets must be meaningful and achievable or people will simply walk away.

      The IPCC has just shot itself in both feet.

      • Derek Buxton permalink
        October 10, 2018 11:55 am

        But think on this, who will pay? Not the UN, and governments are up to their necks in debt, and we soon will be. All that waits on us is death, but then think of the UN members, corrupt past anything known and they will have gained total control over what is left of the developed Nations and the rest can just go away. Stalin and hitler were bad, but compared with this UN gang, they were pussy cats. It has been since its early days corrupt and can only get worse, hypocracy and egotism cannot go much further.

  2. BLACK PEARL permalink
    October 9, 2018 11:10 pm

    Dont know why but when ever I watch this scene I think of an IPCC climate summit

  3. HotScot permalink
    October 9, 2018 11:14 pm

    “And nobody has explained why less Arctic sea ice should be a problem at all.”

    Paul, how could you?!

    A 5pm G&T just wouldn’t be the same without ice.

    That’s all Arctic sea ice is useful for isn’t it?

  4. Terence Wall permalink
    October 9, 2018 11:26 pm

    1. Human activities create a lot of pollution, and only a fraction of the cost is met by the beneficiaries. 2. The climate has always changed, and will always change, and we need to act in advance to reduce the effects of the worst and most predictable changes.

    The climate change activists have tried to make item 2 the direct result of item 1, thus giving anyone who doubts the direct link the opportunity to look at their reasoning and find it lacking, and consequently it is disbelieved and no-one does anything.

    If only all that intellectual energy were to be spent on finding solutions for either or both of the two issues, separately, a lot of progress could be made, but that would require real actions rather than spurious argument, and wouldn’t be nearly so much fun (or so lucrative in many cases).

    • Derek Buxton permalink
      October 10, 2018 11:56 am

      What and lose all those Air Miles they collect?

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      October 10, 2018 12:11 pm

      1. is simply no true. What major pollution cost these days is not met by the beneficiaries? We all use fossil fuels and we all breathe air, so even if you believe the nonsense about NOx or PMs, we all benefit and we all bear the cost.

      This is why the comparisons between fossil fuel companies and tobacco are so silly – the executives at Shell live on the same planet as everybody else.

      • Terence Wall permalink
        October 10, 2018 4:58 pm

        When you eat farmed products you seriously believe you have paid the cost of cleaning up the rivers the insecticides and fertilisers run into? When you use and pay for electricity generated from nuclear fuel the eventual cost of de-commissioning the power stations and securing the waste is built in? If you enjoy a product sourced from a forest clearance area you’re contributing to the re-planting? You pay for an item from China and make a contribution to a fund aimed at cleaning up the sea scum from the emptied tanks of the container ship that brought it? You use your mobile devices yet somehow believe you have already helped to eventually remove the satellites that enable them safely from space?

        I wish I could be that optimistic, but each of those and many more examples could benefit from the involvement of those who are wasting their time trying to justify the link between human activity and climate change.

  5. October 9, 2018 11:27 pm

    With luck they have at last overstepped themselves … have they any idea what $2.xx trillion could do to reduce world poverty and disease?

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      October 10, 2018 12:11 pm

      Yes, massively increase it. It would make the donors poor and not make the recipients rich.

    • Stonyground permalink
      October 11, 2018 10:18 am

      Is it too much to hope that this jumping of the shark will result in a tsunami of scientists crying enough and finally coming out and telling the world that it’s all bollox? I have been waiting for the bubble to burst since the climate gate emails came out, it has to happen sooner or later.

  6. Athelstan permalink
    October 9, 2018 11:56 pm

    the UN is run for and by nutters.

    • Alan Taylor permalink
      October 10, 2018 12:23 am

      @Athelstan Yes nutters. The very same nutters that are behind the massive immigration programme and eradication of white nation states in collusion with the EU.

      • Athelstan permalink
        October 10, 2018 2:19 am

        Thank you Alan.

        However, with me (and many others I might add) you are talking to the already ‘woke’ and converted.

        We know very well that, the UN-EU axis is a vehicle to transnational governance all done by a very shady alliance not least in the KSA +56 others, In all that it does, the UN is; anti sovereign Nation states and in everything it tries to do, this is not about man made CO2 – that’s just a veil to hide all sorts of malevolent ends, the Barcelona Declaration but one part of the NWO jigsaw.

  7. bobn permalink
    October 10, 2018 1:37 am

    Sad. I guess like the rest of you i once had great hopes for the UN ideals. Now i want it closed down as worse than a failure.

  8. markl permalink
    October 10, 2018 3:30 am

    The UN is nothing more than the vehicle to deliver its’ version of One World Government. It plays on the social equity conscience to gain adherents and hurts them more than it helps them. .

  9. October 10, 2018 5:18 am

    Missster Bloomberg is one who has inhaled rather too much of the aether of superstition.

  10. October 10, 2018 6:16 am

    The only way we can solve this problem is to elect more socialists, and give them all our money.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      October 10, 2018 1:57 pm

      Give? That suggests we would have a choice if the likes of Comrade Corbyn and his mate Marxist Mcdonnell got in.

  11. qwaezee permalink
    October 10, 2018 9:36 am

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

  12. Coeur de Lion permalink
    October 10, 2018 9:43 am

    It’s just never gonna happen. 62 nations will continue to build 1600 coal fired power stations. CO2 will continue to rise gently. The globe will get colder. Any bets on October’s UAH?

  13. Phoenix44 permalink
    October 10, 2018 12:16 pm

    Fear works on some people. but on most it just does not, unless it is short-term and obvious. Evolution has pretty much seen to that, as being short-term in a world where you are very unlikely to live long-term is a much better strategy.

    And people will go along with being virtuous, until it costs them. Of course we all say we want Green energy, until we have to pay more.

    What is truly awful about this report though is how it utterly fails the economics test. The cost of 1.5 degrees cannot possibly be $24 trillion. It just cannot.

  14. October 10, 2018 1:45 pm

    Did any of you watch President Trump’s recent speech to the UN? He called them out and laid it on the line. He reiterated that the United States is a sovereign nation (as are others), and the United States will not be subservient to the United Nations, nor anyone else.

    Niiki Haley is retiring at the end of the year. She came to the UN Ambassadorship following 6 years as Governor of South Carolina which experienced hurricanes and other fun things during her term there. She had told President Trump 6 months ago that she thought serving for 2 years was time for her to exit. She has been a marvelous representative for President Trump and his policies. Nikki has seen us through beginning North Korea negotiations, Iran deal exit, Paris Climate Accord exit, the move of the embassy to Jerusalem, pulling out of several UN groups (the human rights joke) and cutting our funding to the UN. She will be helping to pick her successor and there are many stepping up to replace her. She will be hard to replace, but wishes to have a break and believes in self-imposed term limits. Nikki will be working to re-elect Trump in 2020. Their joint announcement in the White House yesterday was truly touching to watch.

  15. Robin Guenier permalink
    October 10, 2018 1:56 pm

    Surely even the IPCC is not so foolish as to believe that much of the world will take this seriously? Certainly, the newly industrialised countries (China, India, South Korea, etc.) won’t have the slightest intention of following this advice. Nor will the smaller “developing nations”, which will continue to take their lead from China and focus on demanding their share of the $100 billion per annum “promised” by the “developed” countries. Nor will the US – obviously. Nor will Russia – also obviously. Nor will Japan – increasing its reliance on coal while moving away from nuclear power. And essentially that leaves Western European countries (responsible for less than 10% of global emissions) – which (probably led by the UK) may believe that abandoning the “modern lifestyles and the capitalist system upon which they depend” has merit. And even they, upon reflection, will probably realise that’s hopelessly impractical.

  16. dennisambler permalink
    October 10, 2018 3:13 pm

    More is on the way in 2022, many of the authors of this garbage, including economists and sociologists, are actively working on AR6. The rules for the IPCC say it should be policy non-prescriptive. These are the chapter headings of the current diatribe:

    Chapter 1: Framing and Context
    Chapter 2: Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development
    Chapter 3: Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and human systems
    Chapter 4: Strengthening and implementing the global response to the threat of climate change
    Chapter 5: Sustainable development, poverty eradication, and reducing inequalities

    They have used a lot of authors from countires that would be recipients of our largesse,

    “Give us da money or da Earth gets it, capiche?”

  17. October 10, 2018 3:22 pm

    Paul,my updates from you have ceased.Do I have to re-register,and if so how? TA.

    • October 11, 2018 10:57 am

      Nothing’s changed at this end. Suggest you reegister


  18. Curious George permalink
    October 10, 2018 5:12 pm

    Not so long ago the IPCC called to arms to limit the expected rise in temperature to 2 degrees C. Mother Nature refused to follow the Hockey Graph, now they are attempting to limit it to 1.5C. In ten years they’ll try to limit it to 1C.

    They’ll do anything to prove their success.

  19. DeMaynerd permalink
    October 10, 2018 8:35 pm

    This is why the US needs to get out of this ill-gotten organization. It’s been fleecing US for far too long. Need to cast it aside and have them set up shop somewhere other than the US. They can’t take care of disputing countries so now they want lots of cash on a lie….

  20. October 10, 2018 10:49 pm

    In their dreams they may think they have the power to control world temperatures. In reality they don’t.

    If the sea level or the climate is bothering you, do something about it or move elsewhere. A much worse scenario would be a colder planet.

  21. tom0mason permalink
    October 11, 2018 6:44 am

    Despite all the talk from the UN-IPCC recently, their basic premises of —
    (1) CO2 is warming the planet catastrophically,
    (2) anthropological sources of CO2 are the main cause of atmospheric CO2 levels rising.

    They have NO observational evidence for either — After 20+years they still rely on very inadequate computer models. The IPCC run with the idea that the planet is warming-up and it’s all humankind’s fault, and from this they wish to tax (via carbon tax) the rich nations.
    To quote the ever decisive Margret Thatcher — “NO, NO, NO!”

    The UN-IPCC has failed to show causative observational evidence of CO2 ‘warming up the planet’, and certainly their linkage to anthropological fossil fuel usage is merely circumstantial at best and mythological at worst, then attempting to put a price on CO2 (as a carbon tax) premature and irrational.
    They are also remarkably vague about how a few $trillion would be spent. If it is up to the usual UN standards the audit trail will be deficient, the money will be wasted on political projects, and no one will be protected from anything.

  22. George Lawson permalink
    October 11, 2018 9:52 am

    “Even a rise of 1.5 degrees would have massive consequences, including a “multi-meter rise in sea levels” over hundreds to thousands of years and a mass extinction of plants and animals. With a temperature increase of that scale, of the 105,000 species studied, 6 percent of insects, 8 percent of plants and 4 percent of vertebrates lose half their habitat. Those proportions double with a 2 degree gain.”

    How in God’s name do these people come up with these very specific figures? It is clear that the UN and IPCC are out to scare the worlds population into believing these forecasts in order to justify their existence, and as such show that they are quite unfit for purpose. They should be wound up and the huge cost of their existence should be expended in other worldwide projects for the betterment of the poorer nations of the world. With the courage shown by President Trump since his election, perhaps he will take the lead by withdrawing the huge costs which the US and all countries carry in order to keep this useless body in being.

  23. October 11, 2018 11:44 pm

    Thanks Paul.Actually a friend of mine wandered in this morning,and after calming me down,he pointed out that they were all in my spam box,and wandered off laughing.
    I am now the butt of the jokers in the pub.
    My computer is an alien.

  24. quaesoveritas permalink
    October 15, 2018 6:50 pm

    Has anyone downloaded this report from the IPCC site given in the link?
    There are separate supplementary material downloads for each chapter listed, but they all seem to be for chapter 1.
    Are they supposed to be different?

  25. quaesoveritas permalink
    October 15, 2018 7:40 pm

    On BBC News today, during an interview with Lord Devon, a BBC newsreader said that the UN report had “issued a warning that global temperatures were rising faster than they had anticipated”.
    Does the report actually say that?
    I haven’t read the whole report, but the nearest I have found so far is in the summary for policy makers:

    “A1.2. Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence) {1.2.1, 1.2.2, Figure 1.1, Figure 1.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2}”

    Does the report say anywhere that temperatures are “rising faster than anticipated”. If so, I don’t know how they justify that. since they are rising slower than the lowest mean forecast.


  1. UN greens endorse gigantic global use of chemical energy

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: