Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1429677)	12/20/2023 12:59:02 PM
From: Maple MAGA	2 Recommendations Recommended By longz Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578633

The Windmills of Your Mind Intuition tells us — at least those of us who are thoughtful observers — that the “net-zero” craze is a hoax that will not work, and will bankrupt any nation that seriously attempts to implement it. There is now an academic study that backs up that intuition. It quantifies the catastrophic economic failure that would result if Greta Thunberg were to get her wish, and the developed world attempted an implementation of net-zero. Many thanks to Hellequin GB for translating this article from Report24. The translator’s comments are in square brackets: The Paris climate targets do not pass the cost-benefit test A new comprehensive analysis examines whether implementing the Paris Agreement’s emissions policy goals will produce more good than harm. The result is sobering and should also alarm climate fanatics. We cannot destroy our economy just because we hope that it will have an improbable temperature effect. Regardless of whether or not the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions actually has an effect on global temperature development, the implementation of laws, regulations and measures in this regard is guaranteed to have an effect on the world’s economic development. The — highly questionable — measures decided by politicians will also lead to massive economic upheaval in the coming decades. This is also illustrated by a new comprehensive analysis on this topic. The analysis shows that even in the best-case scenarios, the trillions of dollars in costs (4.8% of GDP) associated with transitioning from fossil fuels to net-zero emissions by 2050 still outweigh the net benefits (3 .0% of GDP) in 2100. “The central estimate of the costs of climate policy, unrealistically assuming implementation at minimal cost, is in the range of 3.8-5.6% of GDP in 2100. The central estimate of the benefits of climate policy, unrealistically assuming high emissions without policy and constant vulnerability, is between 2.8-3.2% of GDP,”, according to the researchers. These also explain that in 2050 — when “net zero” should be achieved according to politicians’ plans — “the best estimates of the benefits of the 1.5° C target would be around 0.5% of GDP”, “while the costs would be almost 5%”. So we are talking about a negative contribution ten times greater than any possible benefit. In various medium-sized model calculations you also get a negative cost-benefit ratio with a factor of two to four. However, one should not forget that this analysis assumes a correlation between the CO2 content of the air and the temperature development. An assumption that has already been refuted by several research teams. For example, Report24 already has reported here, here, and here. This also means: All the measures taken by politicians to reduce CO2 emissions will have no significant impact on global temperatures, but will have a massive impact on economic developments. So we should prepare for a worst-case scenario for the economy… Afterword from the translator: I simply use the words of our friend Vlad Tepes to describe what the journalist and the editor of this article have overlooked, like they always do when it comes right down to it. “The most important thing to understand with the Left is: the point is never the point; the revolution is ALWAYS the point.” In a more blunt way: the truth is irrelevant for the narrative sold to the serfs. Their death is a small price to pay for “saving” the “climate”, “public health”, or whatever they decide needs to be “saved”. Wake up and don’t forget: they pay for all of this with YOUR life and the lives of your friends and family.