Governments spent $359 billion in 2012, about the same as 2011, on their effort to stop global warming.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Where the big money really is in climate science: Governments spent $359 billion in 2012, about the same as 2011, on their effort to stop global warming.

Global investment in climate change plateaued at USD $359 billion in 2012, roughly the same as the previous year, according to a new Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) study, “The Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2013.” Once again the figure falls far short of what’s needed. The International Energy Agency projects that an additional investment of USD 5 trillion is required by 2020 for clean energy alone, to limit warming to two degrees Celsius. However, the gap is likely wider: The World Bank projects we are on a path to four degree Celsius warming, suggesting that efforts to scale up finance are falling further and further behind.

I include the quote above to make it clear that the source is very much a supporter of the human-caused global warming scenario. And while the article also details the large amounts of money invested in fossil fuels, it is important to recognize the difference. The money for stopping global warming is almost entirely used for fake research or public relations propaganda efforts or to support government regulatory agencies. The money for fossil fuels is money used to invest in actual energy production.

Share

6 comments

  • wodun

    “Once again the figure falls far short of what’s needed. The International Energy Agency projects that an additional investment of USD 5 trillion is required by 2020 for clean energy alone, to limit warming to two degrees Celsius”

    Yup, it isn’t the amount of money that is spent but rather what it is spent on. They can pick any arbitrary target and say they wont meet it without more money.

  • Cotour

    Sounds like one hell of a good business to be in.

  • Jwing

    If this was done by free market businesses (i.e.Enron), they would all have been “perp-walked” to jail and instantly labeled as monopolistic,greedy capitalist tycoons.

  • If ‘the science is settled’, then engineers should be able to design specific programs employing concrete and verifiable metrics over defined timelines. If some amount of money is spent on a given program, then there should be a measurable difference in the metric of choice; CO2, average global temperature, what have you.

    I’m hearing a lot of hysterical rhetoric over supposedly defined contributions to ‘climate change’ (burning hydrocarbons and the like) where the neo-pagans seem to be able to come up with definite effects from behavior they don’t like (OMG! The seas will rise 2.1 feet in the next century!), but try to pin them down on what, exactly, the measurable effects socializing the world’s economy will have: not so much.

    Here’s an idea: why don’t all the Chicken Little’s live the lifestyle of their choice in their communes, and leave the rest of us alone.

  • Cotour

    And I await scientists demonstrating how they can recreate the Shroud Of Turin by exposing a cloth to the effects of nuetrino’s generated by an earth quake, according to a new theory of how it came to be. I await the demonstration.

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/11/shroud-turin-could-ancient-earthquake-explain-face-jesus/

  • wodun

    That is about double the spending of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars at their peak.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *