REPORT: $12.7 Trillion Needed To Meet Paris Climate Accord’s Goal

A whopping $7.4 trillion will be spent globally on new green energy facilities in the coming decades, but another $5.3 trillion is needed to meet the goals of the Paris climate accord, according to a new report.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) is out with a new long-term energy outlook report, this time projecting a total of $12.7 trillion to keep projected global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century — a goal of the Paris accord.

BNEF projects $7.4 trillion will be invested in new green energy capacity by 2040, and that global carbon dioxide emissions will be 4 percent lower in that year than in 2016.

But that’s not enough to keep projected warming below 2 degrees, the report warns.

BNEF says a “further $5.3 trillion investment in 3.9 [terawatts] of zero-carbon capacity would be consistent with keeping the planet on a 2-degrees-C trajectory,” according to an excerpt of the report obtained by Axios.

President Donald Trump announced U.S. withdrawal from the Paris accord in early June, arguing it would hurt American workers by transferring wealth from them to economic competitors, like China and India.

“This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States,” Trump.

China and India joined the Paris agreement in 2016, but neither plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions anytime soon. China said it would “peak” emissions by 2030 and India has been promised foreign aid to boost green energy production.

Nearly 200 countries agreed to the Paris accord in 2015, pledging to limit future global warming to 2 degrees Celsius by 2100 and transfer $100 billion a year from rich countries to poor countries starting in 2020.

Critics of Trump’s withdrawal say the U.S. will miss out on business opportunities in green energy outside of the Paris agreement. They say the U.S. abdicated leadership and with it economic opportunity.

Much of the green energy development over the next few decades will occur in China and India, according to BNEF. Those countries will see $4 trillion in investments in green energy through 2040.

“Beyond the term of a president, Donald Trump can’t change the structure of the global energy sector single-handedly,” Seb Henbest, lead author of the BNEF report, told Bloomberg.

Except, it’s unlikely the world’s largest economy would be left out of the alleged “green revolution.” Bloomberg predicts green energy will continue to grow in the U.S. regardless of Trump’s policies to boost fossil fuels.

BNEF expects global carbon dioxide emissions to peak in 2026, with the growth largely driven by developing economies. The group predicts $2.8 trillion to be invested in non-renewable energy capacity, like natural gas.

Green energy additions will be driven by falling costs and also government policies to phase out fossil fuels to fight global warming. Many U.S. states, for example, mandate ever-growing shares of their electricity come from green sources.

Wind and solar power will make up nearly half the world’s electricity capacity, BNEF claims, and meet 34 percent of electricity needs. Today those sources only generate 5 percent of global electricity.

Read more at Daily Caller

Trackback from your site.

Comments (8)

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    We have been things to spend that trillions of dollars on then on some idealigical bull poo like this Global Warming/Climate Change fruad and we can save even more by dumping the Useless Nations in the trash heap

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Edmonton Al

    |

    The UN IPCC keeps telling us that if CO2 doubles from 400ppm to 800ppm then the global temperature will rise about 2C degrees.
    The increase of CO2 [400ppm] is 1 part in 2500.
    Please tell me how 1 molecule of CO2 can “trap” enough “heat” to heat up the other 2499 molecules of N2 and O2 2C degrees….
    It is absurd. besides a gas cannot “trap” heat in an open system.
    When a gas is heated it expands and rises, thereby transferring “heat” to the upper atmosphere and out into space as radiation.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      David Lewis

      |

      Some claim that carbon dioxide doesn’t act as a green house gas at all. One thing certain is that there is very poor correlation between carbon dioxide the earth’s temperature since 1900. In the period between 1910 and 1941 we had 40% of the temperature increase blamed on man at a time when carbon dioxide was lower and fairly steady. More recently, we have had a pause in warming after a drastic increase in CO2 levels.

      Another study says that carbon dioxide does have a green house effect but the as the concentration increases, this effect becomes saturated. This means with raising CO2 levels, there is no additional green house effect.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Edmonton Al,
    Absolutely correct . How did the man made global warming con job ever get this far is the real question . Money , scientific illiteracy , a globalization agenda and good old fashion con men selling their crap . As long as tax payers are picking up the tab
    with a limitless, no repayment credit card who is going to end the largest fraud in history ? Donald Trump has put a temporary finger in the dike but Mueller and the hatchet men are busy busy in removing him .
    Global warming ends when the credit card gets cut up .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    The Warmists predict ecological disaster if we allow CO2 concentration to double. WE MUST ACT NOW! What if government debt doubles? Well, it has in only a few years. No economic disaster, yet. The calamities begin when currency is shunned and a barter system takes over. Every member of the G20 is in debt, so the deck of the Titanic looks level, for now. The UN is saying that while western governments are printing cash like it’s toilet paper, could they please print extra for their planned New World Order? Nothing fishy about that, is there?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Sonnyhill

      |

      Sorry, I forgot to point out that socialist George Soros is a world-class currency manipulator. In one trading day, he profited $1Billion betting against the British pound. If anyone could find the capitalist Achilles heel, it would be good old George. Why would a one-leg-in-the-grave billionaire care about the weather? He doesn’t. It’s about his legacy.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    “Beyond the term of a president, Donald Trump can’t change the structure of the global energy sector single-handedly,”

    Trump doesn’t care about the world’s use energy. He is just responsible for the US. For half of the states that recognize that man made climate change is a fraud, they should have the option of using economically energy.

    What will change the planned structure of the world’s use of energy is the excessive cost and unreliability of wind and solar power. Germany is already feeling the consequences with power costing three times that of the US.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Sonnyhill

      |

      There’s something that needs emphasis, that today’s electricity supply is not as dependable or affordable as yesterday’s. Liberal politicians emphasis on “green” power generation has introduced more risk and cost premiums without regard to our economy. Ontario has completely disabled two large coal-fired generating stations representing 6000 megawatts. They are not being maintained, just the opposite. Deliberately neglected to “save money”.

      Reply

Leave a comment