Making Money From Climate Alarmism | Eastern NC Now

You’ll be shocked — shocked! — to learn that some enterprising souls stand to make big money from the alarmism associated with climate policy.

ENCNow
Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the John Locke Foundation. The author of this post is Mitch Kokai.

    You'll be shocked — shocked! — to learn that some enterprising souls stand to make big money from the alarmism associated with climate policy. Rubert Darwall writes about the issue for Real Clear Energy.

  • In normal times, before the Climate Emergency, it would be up to financiers and investors to ask the tough, unsentimental questions, such as: What's the return on investment? How long is the payback period? But not when it comes to climate change. In its 2018 1.5? Special Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declined to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the net-zero target. The target, the IPCC declared, implies "risk assessments and value judgments" - as if this nullified the need to assess whether the benefits of net-zero outweigh the costs.
  • At the end of his Reith lecture, [Mark] Carney was asked by historian Niall Ferguson if he'd read Bjorn Lomborg's most recent book, False Alarm. Lomborg calculates that each $1 spent on cutting greenhouse gas emissions yields only 11 cents of future climate benefits. With trillions being spent on climate change, this estimate implies that a colossal burden is being placed on the current generation - especially those who can least afford to bear it - for little climate gain. Ignorance is no defense; nonetheless, Carney tried it. No, he hadn't read Lomborg's book, Carney answered Ferguson. He dismissed Lomborg's as a "classic economic approach," though he offered no data or evidence to show why Lomborg was wrong. ...
  • ... A February 2021 paper by David Rode and Paul Fischbeck of Carnegie Mellon University examines the pervasiveness of apocalyptic forecasts of climate change. "The only observations we have of prior apocalyptic forecasts are of forecast failures," they note. "There is no rational model of decision making that attributes increasing credibility to forecasts upon successive failures." By the end of 2020, 61% of the predictions had already expired. The average time horizon before a climate apocalypse for the predictions made before 2000 was 22 years; for those made since 2000, it was 21 years. Across half a century of forecasts, the apocalypse is always around 20 years out.

Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published )
Enter Your Comment ( text only please )




Three School Initiatives Show Promise John Locke Foundation Guest Editorial, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics National Review Highlights Cooper’s Anti-School Reopening Stance


HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

as RINO incumbents Cornyn in Texas and Cassidy in Louisiana trail in the polls
government's offer is rejected, the battle continues, no confidence vote in parliament

HbAD1

Understanding how parties work is important for making informed decisions regarding elected officials.
Tax Day is a week away, and the reports are in: North Carolinians are winning big with record-setting tax returns thanks to President Trump and Republicans' Working Families Tax Cuts.

HbAD2

“It is a trust fund, a piece of the American economy for every child that they will be able to take out when they are 18.”
farmers, truckers and supporters block roads, fuel deports, and ports to protest climate taxes on fuel
Sunrise Movement which focuses on climate alarmist is now engaged with illegal immigration
a typical lying Democrat, she told voters she was a moderate, and then went hard left
Change in schedule for executive committee meeting. Meeting Thursday April 9 is cancelled.

HbAD3

 
 
Back to Top