Green Deal Promises That Will Not Be Met

Mish

Climate Neutral by 2050? Forget It.

EU Promises and Goals vs Reality

Unlike the US where Trump wants nothing to green deals, the EU has made a number of pie in the sky promises.

Eurointelligence, mocks the promises in Reasons to be Wary of the Green Deal.

In theory, green technology could be to Europe what digital has been to the US and what artificial intelligence promises to be for China. We have our doubts, though. The EU is clearly overselling the green deal. The green share in EU projects is vastly exaggerated through dubious rounding-up practices, a creative accounting method that would land you in prison if you tried it on your tax returns. The EU has still not kicked the habits of the Juncker investment plan: a castle in the air combining hype and leveraged aspirations. 

The hard bit is not setting ambitious targets, like the recently proposed 55% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 relative to 1990. We noted an article in FAZ this morning by Hendrik Kafsack, who points out that this target requires, at a minimum, the following sectors to be completely CO2-emissions-free: energy production, traffic, buildings, and almost the entire manufacturing economy. He writes that the EU has picked all the low-hanging fruit, but has yet to take the tough decisions. De-carbonisation will be very expensive. And these decisions will only be made if the rest of the world adopts the same targets. Otherwise, production will simply relocate.

We agree with Kafsack that a CO2 border tax is absolutely required to prevent this relocation. We also agree with him that emissions trading is probably the best instrument to achieve the target. Sectoral micromanagement, of the car industry for example, has become necessary because the system is not working as expected. 

Eurointelligence supports much of this nonsense, but at least they are realistic about things. 

Unless and until China is willing to act, nothing is going to happen. 

It's easy to make goals and promises, but the costs are enormous and it's impossible to make targets for others.

Meanwhile, technology advances are doing quite nicely on their own accord. In contrast to what Green New Deal advocates say, the world will not end in 10 years even if we do nothing at all.

For discussion of the costs, please see AOC's Green New Deal Pricetag of $51 to $93 Trillion vs. Cost of Doing Nothing .

Also see AOC "New Green Deal" Stunningly Absurd: Far More Ridiculous Than Expected

By the way, how many years ago was it that Green New Deal advocates said the world would end in 10 years?

Mish

Comments (41)
No. 1-18
Scooot
Scooot

My reply box is back thank you. Boris’s latest plan. I can’t see him hitting his target either.

Boris Johnson: Wind farms could power every home by 2030 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54421489

Anda
Anda

My reply to story box has returned also.

Well...I'm just reading for Spain. There the deficit this year is going to be somewhere over 10%, but next year it's "all good" with an up yours V . Obviously there is a lot of fudge in the numbers by accounting - less tax revenue this year and lower gdp with spending pushed forward accounted for one year but taking effect later etc. etc. and could not be bothered to even try to figure it all out. Anyway they have new funds backed by other european countries and negative rate euro so they will spend. 37% of outside funds will go to "ecological transition" and a third to "digital transition" - that is of 140 bn over three years or @ 14% gdp. This is going to "create 800 000 new jobs" according to gov. in the article (linked below) . I guess that is that many more people state employed no ? We have experience of state projects in Spain, lots of experience :( . That many jobs is roughly 3% of the active population I think.

It gets even more confusing once you look at employment level. NOT counting those furloughed there were 21 mn people inactive in whatever way and 14 mn employed in Q2 . That was lockdown, so... but businesses continue getting ruined, and since early this year.

The reality is what then ? For sure much higher unemployment into next year, businesses and debt failure overhang, higher spending on subsidy lower revenue... and Spain was around 100% debt to gdp before all this. I guess they will take whatever money is within sight and pretend to manage the country until somewhere north either says enough or moves in for the firesale/rescue etc....the glam will be all about modernisation going on and a new attitude and management... but they couldn't really even if they tried, I think - not that the north is that much better, nor that their own traditional form of discipline was inadequate.

So I wonder what this all looks like for other countries, have not seen them compared wrt the last half year in the above way.

PecuniaNonOlet
PecuniaNonOlet

I would like to flip the narrative here. Imagine a world where 7 billion people all want to drive gas combustion vehicles and are at full or near full employment and full consumption. In 10+ years, we will have an additional 2 billion people on the planet.

There isnt enough energy on the planet to satisfy all the energy needs even with full oil drilling AND the green new deal. So is the unemployment factor now really a silent hidden cry for “not enough energy on the planet” that we have been misreading the past two decades?

Where does the energy come from for full employment world wide?

Eddie_T
Eddie_T

Boy, where to even start on this one. It's a can of of worms.

There is a lot to say about climate change, the importance of reducing C02....how to get there, how delusional most politicians are.....how delusional a lot of citizens are.

First, you are 100% right. Nobody is hitting the marks on the promises made....it's almost a joke, but climate change is a real problem and having some goals...is probably better than no goals at all.

"Green Energy" is largely a bogus idea...the math often doesn't quite work....embedded energy and EROEI are real things that matter. Too many people involved in green energy can't even define those terms.

And like all government programs, it tends to become a conduit scheme to make some people rich.....off the taxpayers' money.

And it sounds good to people who are concerned....but math-challenged.

The only way we get anywhere near any decent goals is using the new smaller nukes that aren't so environmentally problematic. Korea is building what look like much improved nukes. That's good, Environmentalists hate nukes for good reason....but most of them aren't offering to give up, say....electricity in their house......in order to meet carbon emission goals. So small nuclear reactors that can be passively cooled....that's a step forward.

Okay..now....on the part about how many years it's been since the world was supposed to end in ten years.....let me speak to that.

Everybody...or almost everybody involved with climate change is either lying or doesn't understand the real story. Extinction Rebellion and that crowd are campaigners, not truth-tellers. They are blatant liars, in fact.

Plenty of liars on the denial side too.

And the "concerned scientists" are eager to make sure they aren't on the wrong side of the argument... contrarians can't even get published anymore. Our science establishment has lost objectivity. Peer reviewed journals are not impartial anymore. Politics trumps objectivity in science these days, and that leads to a lot of lousy science.

The real bottom line....as I understand it.....(and I am not completely ignorant...I read the summaries of ALL the IPCC reports....and some good contrarian views too).....is this:

The big risk is not that the world will end in ten years (bullshit).....or that we will be unable to grow ample food due to temperature increases (bullshit). The real risk is that there are real tipping points in this climate system we call our atmosphere.....that once passed, will result in IRREVERSIBLE changes..that won't play out for decades or even centuries.....but will EVENTUALLY make the earth unlivable for humans.....in the very long run.

And I guarantee you nobody alive now knows EXACTLY where those tipping points are...or whether we might have passed them already. End of story.

The data does clearly support a 3 degree rise for every doubling of CO2 concentration, which means we ought to try to reduce emissions, if we can.

How to walk the line between reducing carbon emissions and maintaining something like a modern civilization.....that is the challenge. Can we even do that? Frankly, I have no idea.

Zardoz
Zardoz

Looks like we're on track for the Soylent Green Deal though.

Webej
Webej

55% reduction ... target requires, at a minimum, the following sectors to be completely CO2-emissions-free: energy production, traffic, buildings, and almost the entire manufacturing economy.

So what does that leave for the other 45%? Agriculture, ships, and aviation?

I must be missing a huge energy consumer...

ColoradoAccountant
ColoradoAccountant

Another air alert day here in the West as millions of acres of carbon based plants and trees get oxidized.

Augustthegreat
Augustthegreat

Promises may not be met in the end. but it's better to make some good faith efforts in trying to solve the problem, than pretending that the problem does not exist.

Realist
Realist

Global warming is such a slow moving, long-term problem, it is very difficult to get governments/businesses/people to commit to solving it with any significant actions.

Complicating the situation is that it is a global problem, which requires a global solution, which in turn requires global cooperation. Good luck getting global cooperation. Why should country A do something when country B will not?

In addition, there are so many other more immediate problems, such as the pandemic, that we need to focus on, it makes it much easier to say we will deal with global warming later.

So global warming is going to continue for many more decades. The ice will keep melting, the oceans will keep rising, and the costs of our inaction will also keep rising each year. And our children and grandchildren will wonder why we didn’t do something as they suffer the consequences of our inaction.

On a personal level, whether you recognize global warming is happening or even if you don’t, you can still be a small part of the solution and save money to boot.

Being part of the solution is often in people’s best interest. Most things you can do will actually save you money and could even improve your health and fitness. (I won’t make a list here, as there are large numbers of books, and websites you can check out for thousands of ideas, many of which could work for you). To over-simplify a lot, just think of ways to reduce your energy consumption in all aspects of your life, and save money.

Appealing to everyone’s self-interest is the best way to reach people.

amigator
amigator

I think we can go back to the late 80's when we had 15 years or else...

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer

There is a higher chance some large coastal cities get permanently flooded by 2050 before we go climate neutral. Some people are gonna decompose in the ocean for eons.

nzyank
nzyank

Mish - I disagree.
The US is becoming a more self centered, individualistic, what's-in-it-for-me society, while at the same time denying self responsibility - "Unless and until China is willing to act, nothing is going to happen", for example. We face numerous global issues that threaten our collective well being. While I hope none of these issues results in catastrophe in the next ten years, the US should show proactive leadership to help ensure they don't result in catastrophe. Avoiding personal responsibility by stating "the world will not end in 10 years even if we do nothing at all" is flat out sending the wrong message. We need to learn to work together again, both nationally, and internationally, instead of divisively. Biden and Harris are well suited to this task, unlike Trump and the Republican party that have entirely failed. We are much stronger collectively than divided, but this must be based on a foundation of self-responsibility.

Golden Decoration
Golden Decoration

Sechel
Sechel

How about simply agreeing to crack down on flaring and require methane recapture instead of burning it off and duming it into the atmosphere instead of trying to end the use of carbon based energy tomorrow why not make it safer and clearner. Coal's days may be numbered but we will need to use natural gas for years to come. why not do it better?

Solar and wind simply can't be the source of 100% of our energy needs anytime soon

RonJ
RonJ

"Green Deal Promises That Will Not Be Met"

It isn't about climate change. It is about imposing socialism world wide.

When Oxford students complained about fossil fuel investments by the university, they were told the fossil fuel heat to their dorms could be shut off. It upset the students.

Virtue signalling was cheap. The students would rather stay warm than actually "fight climate change."

I wonder how many democrat voters complained when their electricity was shut off for a while during the recent heat wave here in California. It is what they asked for.
This time wasn't too bad, but it will likely get worse in the future.

After the Explosion in Beruit, an L.A. Times reporter there, stood in front of the local power company, noting it was not a favorite of the locals, as they only had electricity a few hours a day.

awc13
awc13

"how many years ago was it that Green New Deal advocates said the world would end in 10 years"

1989.

"If global warming isn’t reversed by the year 2000, it will be too late to avert catastrophe"

That was the 1989 prediction by Noel Brown, an environmentalist apparatchik at the U.N.

awc13
awc13

the question i never see asked nor answered is:

"what is the correct temperature for our planet?"

if we are going to change the temperature how do we know what to change it to? we are assuming that the correct temperature is the past 100 or so years. the earth has been around for what, 4 billion years? and we are going to pick the last 100 out of 4 billion?

Six000mileyear
Six000mileyear

You know an official has no accountability when openly stating a policy they support will result in greater unemployment and economic slowdown.


Global Economics

FEATURED
COMMUNITY