 |
| A wind turbine in India |
Dodwell: "…the world needs about 1.5 times today's global GDP in investment between now and 2050." (To control climate change). Global GDP =~ 100 T US$. 1.5 x = 150 T. To 2050, say 25 years. Annual "needs" = $US 6 TRILLION, or 6% of annual world GDP."Stretch goals" are all very well. But 6% of GDP is simply ludicrous. It only harms the campaign for renewables to set out such blatantly unreachable targets.
ADDED: Hong Kong had a stretch goal for road traffic accidents (maybe still does):
"Our goal: Zero road accidents".
This was so patently ludicrous that no one took any notice and there was no change in the three years after they introduced it.
Better to have policies that reduce traffic accidents. Same with the climate thing. Better have policies that reduce CO2 emissions rather than grand "stretch goals" like Dodwell's 6% of global GDP to be given to poor countries; or "Net Zero" (unattainable).
One of the comments at the site notes that more money to poor countries will be more money in elites' pockets. Sadly he's right. I've seen it with mine own eyes in Africa. And simply ignoring this truth, as does Dodwell, doesn't make it go away. Comment from “c.c.”:
The problem when you pour more money into poor countries is that those monies will end up somewhere other than climate projects. Accountability, transparency and governance are patchy with the governments of these poor countries. Better to do it like the OBR project financing. Instead of cash flowing in, it is know-how, materials, skilled labour being deployed by the sponsoring countries to build sustainable energy plants, and other projects. What these poor countries get in the end are plants and infrastructure that really works; not just debts with nothing concrete to show. And of course, some people have to lift sanction on solar companies and solar materials from China, esp. from Xinjiang .... but we all know these countries will NEVER agree to do that.
