It’s Al Gore’s favorite issue.
It’s the “terrifying” thing Barack Obama said he started his day thinking about as President.
And a Danish statistician just estimated it would cost at least $100 trillion to combat.
That’s more than the entire world’s gross domestic product.
Bjorn Lomborg, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, said, “We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three-tenths of one degree — the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years.”
He goes on: “The cost of the U.N. Paris Climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.”
The United States’ annual budget is under $4 trillion.
According to the U.N.’s own climate prediction model, Lomborg said he found that Obama’s Paris Climate Agreement will accomplish almost nothing.
Lomborg explained, “Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented — not just for the 14 years that the Paris agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century — the EPA’s Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just 0.023 degrees Fahrenheit.
“In the unlikely event that all of these extra cuts also happen, and are adhered to throughout the rest of the century, the combined reduction in temperatures would be 0.057 degrees.
To put it another way, if the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.”
Lomborg says the Paris Climate Agreement is full of “grand pronouncements and vague specifics,” and he rejected what he called, “political hot air and even larger government subsidies of today’s inefficient green technologies.”
The United States currently pays $8 billion a year to fund the United Nations so they can turn around and impose trillions of dollars in new costs and shave away at our sovereignty at the same time.
Barack Obama bypassed the Senate and signed the Paris Climate Agreement through Executive Order on August 29, 2016 — the same day China signed.
“I, Barack Obama… do hereby accept the [Paris] Agreement and every article and clause thereof on behalf of the United States of America,” the page said.
The Paris Climate Agreement went into effect on Nov 4, 2016.
Policies stemming from the agreement, which will be implemented include major emissions-cutting and federally-mandated “climate pollution” cuts.
If the Paris agreement is ultimately ratified by 55 countries that contribute to 55% of global emissions, it will gain legal force internationally.
After the United States and China signed the agreement last August, the number of nations who had joined totaled 26 with the global percentage resting at 39.06%.
After he signed the agreement “on behalf of the United States of America,” Obama made a statement. He said, “And someday we may see this as the moment that we finally decided to save our planet.”
Governments around the world, starting with the United States, are already spending billions of tax dollars at once on new climate change research and subsidizing unwanted services and products.
The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report in 2016 named climate change as one of the biggest risks the human race faces.
But the question isn’t whether or not climate change is “real” or is a threat to humankind.
The real question at stake is whether even $100,000,000,000,000 will make even the tiniest, most fractional difference in the health of our environment or whether it will just make politicians more corrupt and powerful, and cronies richer.
What will those politicians do with the hundred trillion dollars it will take to make a tiny dent?
What dubious products or services or new policy implementation will those citizen tax dollars fund?
Which so-called “climate-change entrepreneurs” will profit?
And will it have any impact at all against climate change?