[Graeme]

UN study says $76 trillion needs to be invested in Green Technologies over the next 40 years to avoid 'Planetary Catastrophe'

Humanity is close to breaching the sustainability of Earth, and needs a technological revolution greater – and faster – than the industrial revolution to avoid “a major planetary catastrophe,” according to a new United Nations report. The report - The World Economic and Social Survey 2011: The Great Green Technological Transformation (251 pages). The survey says $1.9 trillion per year will be needed over the next 40 years for incremental investments in green technologies. At least $1.1 trillion of that will need to be made in developing countries to meet increasing food and energy demands. Major investments will be needed worldwide in the developing and scaling up of clean energy technologies, sustainable farming and forestry techniques, climate-proofing of infrastructure, and in technologies reducing non-biological degradable waste production.

This UN study is asking for 3% of world GDP for an accelerated conversion to green technologies, revamping agriculture according to their agenda and tossed in poverty elimination. I see zero chance of this proposal being adopted. They are asking for 20 times more than what was rejected at Copenhagen. It is interesting to see what kinds of plans get created by the United Nations and to imagine what the world would be like if these kinds of plans actually had serious consideration.

nextbigfuture

[vision-master]

an to think one man has just figured out LENR by using only his own moola....

[Serial_Worrier]

LOL - so basically what the UN is saying that ALL the wealth of the civilised countries has to be plundered OR ELSE!!!!

[Oakley]

We already are at the point where people are suffering and dieing for lack of output from the industrial age. The economy has begun a long term decline that will in good time return us to a level of economic output more characteristic of Colonial America; and certainly far from the George Jetson vision of the future.

So from what source is the energy to come to fuel this $2 trillion a year additional burden of "investment". For perspective, the GDP of the US is $14.7 trillion of which 42% is government spending, leaving $8.5 trillion in the private sector. The private sector is the only source of wealth creation, so any "investment" in Green Tech would need to come from that; the US government is too busy spending what wealth it confiscates from the public on bombing innocent people around the world and hampering private production here at home, so there is unlikely any shift in spending to occur to fund Green Tech. And other governments around the world are similarly fully committed with their respective budgets.

It would require creating considerable additional human suffering and death to fund the grand schemes of the Green world, most of which are marginal and would do nothing in the long run to avert the future that is already determined by nature and her limits.

The only thing I could say about the proposed "investment" is that it would accelerate the die off, which some would say has some benefit to planet earth.

The epitaph of the human race will be, "Played with fire and got burned."

[Timo]

$76 trillion sure sounds like one hell of a stimulus package to me, and that's for the entire planet! Want a job? Go green! Or, we nickle and dime our future away, making small, gradual investments just so we don't abandon the status quo too quickly (Big Oil is a huge campaign contributor, wink-wink) until we find ourselves completely without much of a future at all. Not a pleasant future, anyway. After all, we can't rationally be expected to put a price tag on our future and the future of our children, grand children, great-grant-children, and all of life on the planet. What do you think our survival is actually worth, anyway?!?

[Oakley]

The private sector is the only source of wealth creation

boy. you lost me there. The US interstate system created this countries wealth by converting farms and forests into real estate (the ultimate securitized investment instrument) and allowed construction of new homes/buildings to become the foundation of our post-WWII economy. Without this government mandated and subsidized construction project (the "greatest" ever) we would be a still be fragmented collections of small towns connected by country roads. Or railroads.

Regardless. I do agree that our dilapidated infrastructure will not be replaced any time soon. Not by magical "green" technologies. There is no magic fix for a century of FF dominated transport/agricultural systems that has already become underpowered and overpriced.

Where did the government get the wealth to spend on the interstate system? They extracted it from the private sector, and I guarantee you that they squandered a significant portion on themselves and on "special deals". They may have directed it into highways (which were built by the private sector) which meant that it was not used where the free market would have directed it. They took wealth out of the more efficient private sector and put it in the very inefficient public sector. They did not create wealth, but just expropriated it and distorted the market place by spending it on what no sane person would have. If there were demand for an interstate highway system, private toll roads would have come into existence, just like private railroads came into existence. We have an interstate highway system because the military wanted it, not because it was demanded by the markets.

I am surprised that you would choose the interstate highway system as an example of government creation of wealth. They did foster urban sprawl; they did destroy private railroads, a huge destruction of wealth; they did foster the auto industry, and the attendant rapid destruction of oil wealth stored in the ground; they did destroy small towns and city centers; and they contributed a massive amount of environmental destruction in the form of paving over productive land and creation of significant air pollution.

As a thought experiment, imagine everyone in the private sector quit working. Only politicians and bureaucrats continue to work. What would be produced?

[Graeme]

More here including comments from readers.

UN report finds world needs incremental $1.9 trillion invested in green technologies to avert “planetary catastrophe”; global per capita cap on primary energy consumption of 70 GJ/yr may be required

[Pretorian]

Isn't 1.9 trillion is something like 3-4% of the world's GDP in one year? They really think that if everyone would pitch in 4% of their income it would solve all the problems AND bring luxury lifestyles to third-worlders?

[JohnRM]

I believe the author is saying that it will be $1.9 trillion just to survive. It could be done. That is only an average of ten billion per country. Obviously, some nations will be required to contribute at a higher level than others.

[lowem]

If all this sounds familiar that's because it has already been said before, by Robert Hirsch, way back in Sep 2006 :

Last September, a Chronicle editorial warned that global oil production would peak in this decade or the next, and then inexorably decline. Given that likelihood, the United States would have to embark on a crash program to develop alternative energy sources or endure crippling increases in the price of energy. Last week, a study performed for the U.S. Department of Energy concurred with the editorial's conclusions.

The study, led by Robert Hirsch, warned that the world should be spending $1 trillion per year developing alternative energy sources — including tar sands, oil shale and gas liquefaction — to avoid having its economy crippled by oil shortages and the resulting chaos. The study recommends a 20-year lead time, so it might already be too late to prevent a crunch. The report said the timing was uncertain. Hirsch predicted peak oil production could come in five years, almost certainly by 2020.

Now apparently that figure has been turned up to $1.9 trillion per year, and now includes green technology and engineering apparently. Next, we'll have to ask the big questions of who's going to pay for it, where the money is coming from, and as importantly how much lead time do we have, or has that parameter already turned negative?

Don't forget that according to the Hirsch report, it was best to have a 20-year lead time. There *is* no 20-year lead time by now. We'd be lucky to have 2.