Al Gore’s new group demands $15 trillion to fight global warming

A group of executives who want to fight global warming has published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment.

The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims “additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge,” which they say will help the world meet the goals laid out in the Paris agreement.

ETC is made up of energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice President Al Gore, who would no doubt get a piece of the trillions of dollars they are calling for.

ETC’s goal is to “accelerate change towards low-carbon energy systems that enable robust economic development” and limit global warming. ETC’s report comes out as the Trump administration considers whether or not to stay party to the Paris agreement, which went into effect in 2016.

Trump has ordered Obama-era policies meant to comply with the Paris agreement be rolled back, but the White House is mulling whether or not to pull out of the agreement altogether. European countries and energy companies have been pressuring the White House to stay party to Paris.

Royal Dutch Shell, for example, aided the pro-Paris faction of the Trump administration by publicly supporting continued U.S. participation in the United Nations deal. Shell is a major producer of natural gas, which the company bills as a way to fight global warming.

Shell funds ETC, and the group’s report mainly targets emissions from coal use. ETC calls for “a rapid decrease in unabated coal consumption, a peak of oil in the 2020s and a continued role for gas provided methane leakages are reduced significantly.”

ETC says global carbon dioxide emissions need to be cut from 36 gigatons to 20 gigatons by 2040, and the world needs “net zero” emissions after 2050 to keep global temperatures from hitting 2 degrees Celsius by 2100.

To meet that goal ETC claims the world needs “investment in renewables and other low-carbon technologies some $6 trillion higher ($300 billion per year); while the largest required increases – of almost $9 trillion ($450 billion per year) – will be in more efficient energy saving equipment and buildings.”

That’s a $15 trillion price tag to theoretically limit future global warming.

ETC says fossil fuel investment would need to be cut $3.7 trillion over this time, and that’s on top of fundamentally altering their economic systems to make green energy cost-competitive with fossil fuels in some parts of the world by 2035.

The group says an “explicit, predictably rising, forward price curve for carbon, resulting from policy, reaching approximately $50 per tonne in the 2020s and rising to around $100 per tonne in the 2030s – is essential to drive decarbonization beyond power, to reinforce regulatory-driven improvements in energy productivity and to prevent falling fossil fuels prices from undermining the pace of the energy transition.”

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

Categories

About the Author: Michael Bastasch

Michael Bastasch writes on energy, climate and the environment for the Daily Caller.

  • Immortal600

    What stupidity! Humans cannot stop the climate from changing. It will get warmer and colder regardless what we do. They are talking about a colossal waste of money sure to line the pockets of Al Gore and his cronies. All helped by the mindless AGW sheep,

    • Kem Patrick

      You are correct about one thing you wrote, “What stupidity!”… Indeed you are.

      Scientist have well proven that AGW is a fact.

      • Immortal600

        As usual, you see what you want to see, kook. I said humans CAN’T stop the climate from changing. Do you dispute that? Lets hear that you do then that will confirm you as one of the most ignorant people on the planet.

        • Dan Phillips

          Do the little boys on the play-yard cower at your bullying? Or, can they see through your hollow bluster as clearly as we adults do? I’m guessing the latter.

          • Immortal600

            Insecure fools like you usually run away but being as we are on the internet you can act like the arrogant fool you are, little man.

            • Dan Phillips

              My, such an eloquent defense against the charge of bullying by…attempting more bullying. Your intellect and your honesty are well-matched to each other.

              • Immortal600

                Whatever you say, little man. LMAO at the wannabe

    • Li D

      Its currently getting warmer. What is the mechanism behind it currently getting warmer? Rapidly warmer, i should add.
      Cmon, big bluster fool who calls people kook for no reason. What is the mechanism? If your reply even hints at conspiracy i think it would show who is a kook.
      So, straight reply, sans conspiracy please.

      • Immortal600

        How about NATURAL variation as it always has. I don’t need to show anything else. You AGW KOOKS do. That’ right, KOOKS. That is what you believers are. Why? Because you can’t show AGW is real . No one can. There has not been ONE single paper that can describe your “mechanism” in detail. Not ONE.

        • Li D

          Hahahahaha.
          Ok. Lets go with natural variation. Its a reasonable
          first point for scepticism if one knows nothing else.
          What particular natural variation would that be?
          What are the observations to back your claim of natural variation?

          • Immortal600

            You just don’t have a clue, do you? I don’t need any proof, you, however, do. You don’t have any. There are many highly educated scientists that challenge AGW. They know it is a farce. Why is your side stifling debate on the subject and calling for jail time for “deniers”. THAT behavior is why your side is populated with KOOKS.

            • Li D

              ” I dont need any proof “.
              Um. Ok then. Thats cool bananas as you Americans say.
              The trouble is, its better not to make claims then, such as natural variation, if you got no evidence.
              Or your posture comes across strongly as faith sans reason.

              • Immortal600

                What part of “natural” don’t you understand???? WOW! You really don’t get it. Have a good day.

                • Li D

                  Oh i understand natural.
                  Its OBSERVED.
                  Because of those observations, one can differentiate what is natural and what is not.
                  Ask a librarian to help you out.

                  • Immortal600

                    You don’t have a clue.

                    • Dan Phillips

                      All-Too-Mortal600, you seem entranced with this Berry fellow. Have a read on this, which demolishes his nonsense rather handily. http://www.dailyinterlake.com/archive/article-9f46cb44-cc7e-11e5-9150-6f7714cc2782.html
                      In the future, probably best to check facts before hanging your argument on them.

                    • Li D

                      Hello Mr Phillips.
                      Id like to add this link

                      https://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html#ocean

                      which sets out the case very convincingly.
                      In my mind this is the current null hypothesis.
                      To challenge it, Ed Berry needs to not only be convincing in his own idea,
                      but also negate the evidence provided in the link.

                    • Li D

                      WIith reguard to my link, I quite like the idea of the evidence matrix. It would
                      be an interesting exercise to run many denier ideas through one.
                      How bout it Mr Bastasch?
                      Run your ideas through a matrix and see how they stack up.

                    • Immortal600

                      Sure. A PHD in molecular biology is going to lecture the PHD in ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS. RIGHT! LMAO. That is like a podiatrist telling a heart surgeon how to do his job.

                      Is that the best you have? Dan, stop while you can. Your responses belie that great intelligence of yours. LMAO!

                    • Dan Phillips

                      All-Too-Mortal600, you were the one who just days ago was attempting to lecture me that all it took was one brave truth-seeker to prove another scientist wrong. Perhaps you only believe that when the brave truth-seeker in question agrees with your own predetermined opinions? Take a bit of your own advice, read, and learn. The simple fact is that Berry is an aged, far-right political hack (see the other posts on his blog!), and that his “scientific” explanation is anything but. The arguments against his nonsense are basic science – no particularly specialized knowledge is required.

                      I apologize, again, for violating your safe space. I realize that you denialist snowflakes are fragile things, easily offended.

                    • Immortal600

                      I’m not offended. Why? You are a joke and your responses prove it.

                  • Ian5

                    And perhaps a therapist.

                    • Immortal600

                      Yet you don’t disparage people do you? Hypocrite

                    • Ian5

                      No typically but I do think your constant berating of people and their opinions suggest you may have an illness of some kind.

                    • Immortal600

                      Sure, Anybody that doesn’t agree with you or calls you names has an illness. I only berate AGW kooks and you’re one of them. You are a useless troll that comes here spouting the usual climate garbage we all have heard countless times before. Your armchair diagnosis is as far off as your AGW claims. You are still a hypocrite.

                    • Ian5

                      Let’s start with some basics then. Do you you accept that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing? And the current level and rate of increase is human caused?
                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png

                    • Li D

                      Just quickly, it occurs to me a dialog along the form of Platos perhaps, would be exceedingly useful to be written up as a sort of learning tool or framework for those interested in learning.
                      Not to dumbly indoctrinate, but to encourage people to
                      WANT proof and evidence and query knowingly if established procedure is wanting.

                    • Immortal600

                      NO.

                      http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/

                      Until you can show him wrong, don’t bother responding to me.

                    • Ian5

                      That is not how science works. The world-renowned Scripps Institution of Oceanography has been collecting data on CO2 concentrations since the 1950s. The data clearly illustrate the steady increase in mean atmospheric CO2 concentration from 315 ppmv in 1958 to 401 ppmv as of April 2014.

                      If you don’t agree with the data, you have to provide some evidence that it is incorrect not simply a link to a rubbish site that doesn’t event refute that atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

                    • Li D

                      Indeed. Ed Barry was not
                      contesting the concentration. Only the source.
                      How bout you Immortal600? Are you contesting concentration observations?

                    • Immortal600

                      I see that you went to Dr. Berry’s website and asked him 2 questions. Satisfied with his reply? He was very courteous to you.

                    • Li D

                      Yes he was.
                      I will continue a dialog with him perhaps.
                      Its of note, that he didnt call any of his respondents a kook, which seems to be your primary scientific retort.
                      Such a retort lacks rigour.

                    • Immortal600

                      I have responded in kind to you and yours taunts. You guys can dish it out but certainly can’t take it.

                      Continue a dialogue with Dr. Berry, he might teach you something if your mind is open.

                    • Immortal600

                      “That is not how science works.”

                      How would you know? As I said, until you can prove him wrong, don’t bother responding. You are clueless.

                    • Ian5

                      No you are misinformed. The Scripps Institution’s record of atmospheric CO2 i(the keeling curve) s universally accepted even by Ed Berry. Do you deny it? Tell is yes or no and if your answer is no, tell us why.
                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png

                    • Immortal600

                      We aren’t talking about how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. The issue is HOW it gets there and what EFFECT it has on climate. Dr. Berry shows that humans aren’t the cause of increase. Go tell him how he is wrong. Do you have the expertise to argue with an ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICIST??? Why are you wasting your time trolling here. It is obvious you are no scientist and your opinions don’t mean squat.

                    • Ian5

                      “Dr. Berry shows that humans aren’t the cause of increase. ”

                      An extreme position that even most contrarians would dispute today.
                      And of course it’s diametrically opposed to the positions of virtually every US and international scientific academy. Childish intolerance and bluster.

                    • Immortal600

                      Sure. Anything that disputes your extreme view is “Childish intolerance and bluster.” Got it. LMAO

                    • Ian5

                      My “extreme view” as you put it happens to be consistent with the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society and virtually every US and international scientific academy. Whereas, your silly bluster is aligned with professional misinformers and conspiracy theorists.

                    • Immortal600

                      Feel better now? LMAO at the kook.

                    • Ian5

                      No, for clarity, the childish intolerance, bluster (and name-calling) was intended to describe your behavior.

                    • Immortal600

                      Just go away already. You aren’t proving anything with your baby responses. “Oh mommy he called me a kook. waaaah”

                    • Yes and no. Correlation is not causation : and this seems to need to be reiterated incessantly. You might also note that CO2 is in solution in the oceans. Temperature rise will change solubility so that it will retain less. By this time you should see the problem : temperature rise is sufficient to cause elevation of CO2 levels in the air because it has left the water.

                    • Ian5

                      So then please tell us why atmospheric CO2 has risen 25% in the past 50 years to levels that have not been a feature of the planet in at least 800,000 years. What is your explanation?
                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png

                    • I didn’t see any need for an explanation – further to one speculation that I had just given. Noting a change is not sufficient reason for tying it into a process just by itself. You could run a barge through the holes in the ‘explanation’ that CO2 drives change through H2O processes…..likely because no attempt is made to provide further particulars or proof.

                    • Ian5

                      “I didn’t see any need for an explanation… ”

                      >> Of course you didn’t because you prefer to ignore evidence.

                      “You could run a barge through the holes in the ‘explanation’ that CO2 drives change”

                      >> Drive away and provide some evidence to substantiate your misleading assertion. Your position is diametrically opposed to the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy.

                    • Who can argue with ‘positions’. Oh. Wait. They are not data. And that is the essence of my problem. There is no verifiable trail to show that accuracy is reflected in the political assignments given by the UN bureaucracy pushing an energy tax to be controlled by itself. Such a tax has been the subject of trials for fraud in the EU a dozen years ago now ( subsequently, the market collapsed ). As to the positions of scientific organizations presumably cooperating with UNESCO ( which allocates required suitable content for higher education ) those are political statements. But your credibility factor completely ignores the 30,000 plus PhD holders who have formally protested that the CO2 story is not responsible science.

            • Ian5

              Name calling is the preferred strategy of propagandists and the uneducated.

              • Immortal600

                I have endured enough from your side not to give a damn what people like you say.

                • Ian5

                  That sounds about right. You seem to be in your own little bubble and can’t manage an alternative opinion without berating people.

                  • Immortal600

                    So what? You don’t like it. Too bad. I’m not interested in being civil with clowns like you.

                    • Ian5

                      Reminds me of behaviors and attitudes common in my elementary school years… about grade 7…or maybe it was grade 5.

                    • Immortal600

                      As I said, so what? Do you think I care what you think, hypocrite?

                    • Ian5

                      Because school yard behavior and name calling isn’t acceptable on public discussion forums.

                    • Immortal600

                      Yet you can disparage people. YOU are the troll here, not me. I know that escapes you because you don’t think very deeply.

                    • Ian5

                      Please read the disqus terms of use.

                    • Immortal600

                      Please understand I don’t give a damn, hypocrite

          • Li D

            I should add that at least its a sort of positive thing that Mr/Mrs/Miss Immortal600 tacitly acknowledges that there is warming by suggesting a cause, even if that cause is puerile. Most denier muppets think observations all over the world by all countries have been faked. So its a small step.

            • Immortal600

              I never said that I agree that it is warming. That is proof positive that you people see what you want to see. Yeah, temperature numbers have been adjusted and readjusted to fit the narrative (do you deny that there have been readjustments?). Ever since the e-mail scandal at East Anglia you folks have been fighting a losing battle. The climate is not reacting the way your AGW experts have predicted yet they blame just about everything on the nebulous “climate change”. Then you wonder why reasonable folks call you AGW people KOOKS. It should be self-evident. But for you? probably not.

              • Li D

                ” East Anglia ”
                Oh dear. Conspiracy of the
                most dreggiest uniformed kind. And you have the ego
                and hypocrisy to call others a ” kook “.

                • Immortal600

                  Keep trying to minimize what they did. You are a kook.

                • East Anglia is an interesting case. Both of the first two directors were mocked as ‘deniers’ because they said proof and analysis of any man made change was not available nor submitted – merely allegations that proof was irrefutable. And so it is, being missing.