Trillions for an Unmeasurable Impact on Climate
CSS-62 The Climate Crisis/Emergency/Latest Scary Descriptor is based entirely on computer models that are self-acknowledged to “run way too hot” and use unrealistically high emission scenarios (OPS-55 – The State of Climate Science). Should their obviously inaccurate projections be used for making policy decisions? No, but they are. However, we can still use these models to look at the potential impacts of humanity’s current emission reduction obsession.
#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata
This post will present three scenarios that clarify the economic and scientific reality associated with green initiatives, specifically, the 2015 Paris Accord and the current Net Zero nonsense. That statement is not bias, it is a statement based on those economic and scientific realities.
The starting point is Bjorn Lomborg’s 2015 work (Impact of Current Climate Proposals) that showed full compliance with the 2015 Paris Accord 2030 commitments would reduce the global temperature rise by just 0.05 °C (0.09 °F). Extending those commitments to 2100 would increase that reduction to 0.17 °C (0.31 °F). Ultimately (come 2100), confirmation of those reductions is not realistic since the magnitudes are less than the error range associated with the models. Temperatures will continue to rise, and that 0.17 °C reduction disappears within a few years. The cost of that averted/delayed temperature rise was estimated at the time to be roughly 1 to 2 trillion US$/year, likely totalling 170 trillion US$. That is 10 trillion US$ for every 1/100th of a degree that the temperature rise is reduced. There is no cost benefit there. All pain (trillions of dollars) and no gain (an unmeasurable temperature reduction)!
Those numbers are on the high side. Lomborg used the RCP8.5 emission scenario (Representative Concentration Pathways with cumulative warming of 8.5 W/m2). Current emissions are tracking below the RCP4.5 scenario. Unfortunately, emission scenarios above RCP4.5 are still being used routinely to propagate the “Global Warming” narrative. Using a realistic emission scenario will reduce the temperature values shown above. Using radiative forcings that are not restricted by the simplistic, unscientific All CO2, All the Time alarmist narrative will reduce those temperature values even further.
Specific to Canada, our 1.5% contribution to global CO2 emissions would correspond to a 0.00255 °C (0.0046 °F) averted temperature rise (or very likely less).
The second estimate comes from the Fraser Institute’s (Professor Ross McKitrick). His report, “The Economic Impact and GHG Effects of the Federal Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan through 2030” estimated that Canada’s contribution to global averted temperatures would be 0.007 °C (0.013 °F). These numbers are based on Lomborg’s work above. Rather than directly using the 1.5% Canadian contribution, McKitrick started with Lomborg’s US estimate (0.031 °C (0.056 °F)) and then prorated those values to the Canadian situation. This estimate represents a reasonable high end for Canada’s averted temperature possibilities. His evaluation focuses on the Canadian Federal Government’s Emission Reduction Plan (ERP). This post does not look into the detail, but I would highly recommend that Canadians should read this Fraser Institute report.
The final estimate comes from R. Lindzen, W. Happer and W.A. van Wijngaarden. Their recent paper, “Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase” (June 2024), estimates that the averted warming globally (due to Net Zero policies) would be just 0.07 °C (0.13 °F). Assuming a 4-fold increase (to accommodate the alarmists’ All CO2, All the Time narrative), the averted warming will be 0.28 °C (0.50 °F). The 0.07 °C value is lower than the Paris Accord estimates, because Lindzen et al recognize that there are more and stronger radiative forcings than just CO2. The 0.28 °C value is higher than the Paris Accord’s 0.17 °C averted warming because there is a significantly larger emission reduction under Net Zero.
Specific to Canada, our contribution to averted warming under the Net Zero initiative will be 0.003 to 0.011 °C (0.005 to 0.020 °F). These numbers are based on McKitrick’s prorated method (outlined previously). Effectively, Canada’s contribution to Net Zero will be based on a 4.1% contribution rate rather than our 1.5% emission levels. Yes, we are being forced to pay more than our “fair share”. We are leading the world in the “Climate Emergency” fight. Unfortunately (for us, not them), most of the world is not following.
Our emission reduction efforts will have very limited effects on global temperatures. And how much money will we (the taxpayer) be spending to achieve those limited effects? According to the McKinsey & Company report, “The net-zero transition: What it would cost, what could it bring”, those costs would be 275 trillion US$ (roughly 9 trillion US$/year). Vaclav Smil (from the Fraser Institute) in his “Halfway Between Kyoto and 2050: Zero Carbon Is a Highly Unlikely Outcome”, lays out research that suggests those costs are most likely understated based on historical mega-project capital projections versus actuals. Historically, actual expenditures are generally 60% more than original estimates, taking the Net Zero costs up to 440 trillion US$ (roughly 15 trillion US$/year). An additional report by Ken Gregory, P.Eng., “The Cost of Net Zero Electrification of the U.S.A.”, puts just the US cost of battery storage alone at 290 trillion US$. The final number will be astronomically high.
Canada’s capital requirements are estimated to be in the $3.4 trillion and $5.2 trillion (US$2.5 trillion – US$3.74 trillion) from 2023 to 2050 (based on Robert Lyman’s report, “Burdensome Ideology: The Cost to Canada of Climate Regulations”). Given that the average capital of that range only works out to 1.6% of the McKinsey 275 trillion US$ estimate, that estimate may be low. Again, trillions of taxpayer dollars for no measurable temperature reduction. All Pain, No Gain!
This post fits in very well with my CSS-53 – CO2’s Moneyball Moment post. “If CO2 is such a good climate driver, why doesn’t it drive the climate good?” Not surprisingly, our emission reduction efforts are ineffective because CO2 is not a good climate driver. CO2 concentrations have been rising steadily despite the trillions spent to date and major disruptions to humanity’s emissions (i.e.: the 2008 recession and the 2020 Covid-19 lockdowns). CO2’s concentrations are already at levels approaching saturation as per W. A. van Wijngaarden, and W. Happer’s 2021 paper, “Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules”. Going forward, each new CO2 molecule adds less warming capacity than the last molecule and the majority of CO2’s warming is now in the past. Future warming will be small and as a result any averted temperature gains would also be small.
Why are we spending hundreds of trillions of taxpayer dollars for no measurable impact on global temperatures?
CSS-53 – CO2’s Moneyball Moment
Federal Government of Canada – 2030 Emission Reduction Plan
Burdensome Ideology – The Cost to Canada of Climate Regulation (May 2024)
The net-zero transition: What it would cost, what could it bring – McKinsey & Company
Halfway Between Kyoto and 2050: Zero Carbon Is a Highly Unlikely Outcome – Vaclav Smil (2024) – Fraser Institute
The Cost of Net Zero Electrification of the U.S.A. – Ken Gregory, P.Eng. (August 2022)
For more perspective and more detailed analysis, you can also check out some of the following posts.
Impact of Current Climate Proposals – Bjorn Lomborg (November 2015)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.12295
The Economic Impact and GHG Effects of the Federal Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan through 2030 – Ross McKitrick (July 2024) – Fraser Institute
Federal Government of Canada – 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan
Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase – Lindzen, Happer, van Wijngaarden (2024)
https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07392
The net-zero transition: What it would cost, what could it bring – McKinsey & Company
Halfway Between Kyoto and 2050: Zero Carbon Is a Highly Unlikely Outcome – Vaclav Smil (2024) – Fraser Institute
The Cost of Net Zero Electrification of the U.S.A. – Ken Gregory, P.Eng. (August 2022)
Burdensome Ideology – The Cost to Canada of Climate Regulation (May 2024)
Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules – van Wijngaarden, Happer
Climate Short Story (CSS)
CSS-53 – CO2’s Moneyball Moment
One Page Summary (OPS)
OPS-55 – The State of Climate Science
