Thread: UN to US: $10 trillion for climate or else…

UN to US: $10 trillion for climate or else…

By Steve Milloy
Wednesday, October 7, 2009

The United Nations says in a new report that unless we (meaning U.S. taxpayers and consumers) cough up $10 trillion to the world’s renewable energy rentseekers and carbon abatement scamsters, the planet will be destroyed by UN-fabricated global warming.

OCTOBER 6, 2009
Study Asks $10 Trillion for Climate
Comments 136

By SPENCER SWARTZ and SELINA WILLIAMS

LONDON -- An investment of $10 trillion in renewable energy and other carbon-abatement technology will be necessary over the next two decades to limit the rise in the Earth's temperature, the International Energy Agency warns in a new report.

The IEA, energy adviser to the world's richest nations, urges more-aggressive reductions in carbon emissions than what many nations are currently planning. In the report, to be released Tuesday, the IEA calls for investment -- in clean-energy initiatives such as solar power, new nuclear plants and other measures -- of $500 billion a year over the next 20 years.

That is 37% more investment than what the IEA estimated was necessary just a year ago. Some analysts put the current level of investment in clean energy at around $100 billion a year.

The additional investment called for could be particularly expensive for consumers in developed nations such as Germany and the U.S., which would likely face higher costs to fill up their vehicles and keep their lights on.

The IEA also says sales of vehicles powered by the internal combustion engine will need to fall from around 95% of the world's total purchases today to 40% in 2030; electric and hybrid vehicles would need to account for the majority of new vehicle sales over the next 20 years.

The IEA's projections, though sometimes seen as overly ambitious, are generally regarded as relevant guideposts for the energy industry.

Write to Spencer Swartz at spencer.swartz@dowjones.com and Selina Williams at selina.williams@dowjones.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A9

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125479738472566689.html

I'll pick the "or else" option.

Sure...we could print that up. I don't mind the "carbon abatement" requirement....... as long as it meant manufactured items we could sell. I would rather sell Libya and Saudi Arabia solar energy equipment than nuclear power facilities.