Almost £50 trillion must be spent on green technology over the coming decades if the world is to avert a “major planetary catastrophe”, the United Nations has claimed.
Governments must invest three per cent of world GDP – about £1.2 trillion in 2010 – annually for 40 years to stop climate change and famine, according to the UN's department of economic and social affairs.
At least £688 billion of that will need to be spent each year in developing countries, in order to meet their populations' increasing demands for resources, the 2011 World Economic and Social Survey said.
Rob Vos, the lead author of the report, said that to feed a rapidly growing number of mouths, farmers around the world will have to essentially double total international food production between now and 2050.
Easy peasy Vossy - CO2 is food for plants so even MORE CO2 in the atmosphere would mean greater food production.
As for the clowns at the UN demanding governments such as Australia must invest 3% of GDP – about $43.45 billion in 2011 – annually for 40 years would mean Australia would get stitched a staggering $1.737 Trillion – that’s $1,737,840,000,000.00
Or put it another, we’d give away to those spanners in the UN the equivalent of our annual Coal exports each year for 40 years.
Hang on; we won’t be able to do that, as the Greens have a 10 year plan to shut down our $44 billion export coal industry.
To read more about the UN’s insane idea, check out James Delingpole’s post - UN reveals its master plan for destruction of global economy. It really is quite frightening what the UN advocates.
And don’t forget, Bob Brown just can’t wait to be King.
Andy Semple
Follow him on twitter @Bulmkt
Confession: part of me is tempted to just jump on this green gravy train & ride it for as long as it's financially viable (ie: as long as governments keep throwing money at it). How to get out before the bubble pops though, that's the tricky part.
Posted by: Marksouth | July 9, 2011 at 11:17 PM
For context... we would need to double the GST to pay for a "3% of GDP climate fund".
Posted by: John Humphreys | July 10, 2011 at 01:26 AM
To assist the poor in famine stricken countries would be to increase carbon dioxide, not decrease it by spending trillions on useless "green" furphies. This money should be used to help these countries by showing them how to grow their own crops to be self-sufficient. Provide means for watering, fertilising and tending their crops. This happened in 600AD with the Peruvians, just one example.
A carbon tax in Australia if implekmented (hopefully not for the sake of the future of this country) is now obliged to send $1bln to the UN for their useless "green" dream - that is at least $10bln in 10 years and if the UN demands more, then it will be 3 times that amount.
The UN officials pay themselves plenty for talking nonsense. Nothing will change the climate and all this nonsense is brought on by the quest for more money. The UN is like the League of Nations, a corrupt and inept organisation with no facts that CO2 is the devil it is supposed to be.
In fact it has recently been shown on television that plants exposed to more C02 have grown at least twice as much as those which have been starved of the same amount of CO2.
Posted by: Georgina | July 10, 2011 at 01:40 PM
Referring to my last paragraph I have looked at the video "more CO2 in the atmosphere" as in block letters in this article which confirms that plants starved of CO2 don't grow anything like plants with increased levels of CO2. Surely this puts FACTS before FICTION.
Posted by: Georgine | July 10, 2011 at 01:46 PM
"In fact it has recently been shown on television that plants exposed to more C02 have grown at least twice as much as those which have been starved of the same amount of CO2."
Was that peer reviewed television?
Georgina, I suspect you are just cherry picking from the rich pickings available from the TV or online.
Posted by: terra | July 10, 2011 at 02:34 PM
Sorry Terra, this is on a LIVE video also. The only thing which will happen to cherry trees under reductions of CO2 will be that the growth will decrease and cherries will be bought from the USA who are not having a carbon tax. There will be less pickings here then. The USA supplies our market now with beautiful large cherries at a reasonable price. and they are not silly enough to have a tax on CO2.
Read Andy's article and watch the video. Believe it or not. Time will tell!!!
Posted by: Georgina | July 10, 2011 at 03:12 PM
Spot on Andy. It's a pity some people just can't seem to get it and unfortunately they will wake up when it is too late. This country used to rely on "wool from the sheeps back" on our manufacturing, on our fruit and vegetables, on our biscuits, on our clothing and other industries, but no more. Now Bob Brown wants to close down our coal mines and ruin our economy further, in fact break it.
As for his call for a world government and hinting that it's headquarters could be in Australia (with him as President - who does he think he is) it is a pipe dream of an idiot. All these world organisations are inept and Australia should not lose its sovereignty by cow-towing to the UN, IMF, EU, These groups particularly the UN are run by those wanting wealth and fame and have an ulterior motive to try to rule the world. They want to extract billions from countries - but have no idea of how to handle it. All they seem to do first and foremost is to pay themselves handsomely, and live like lords. Protests still rage, the poor are not fed (could be taught how to be self-sufficient by providing the means to sow their own crops) and nothing but chaos reigns in many countries. I repeat - Australia must NOT LOSE ITS SOVEREIGNTY for its own good.
Posted by: Georgina | July 10, 2011 at 03:46 PM
A "live" youtube video! If you believe that you'll believe anything. I suppose it doesn't matter that the video was presented by the oil funded "CO2 science" website. It's one of Andy's favourites.
Posted by: terra | July 10, 2011 at 05:03 PM
Well you can believe it or not. As I said time will tell. Andy is right. I think he has more experience than what we hear from you.
Posted by: Georgina | July 10, 2011 at 05:09 PM
I would suggest you do not believe either Andy or myself. If you bother to read the scientific literature rather than be spoon fed bits of nonsense, that would not be unlike educating yourself.
It is quite clear that Andy merely regurgitates what he reads at "CO2 science", cuts and pastes blogs by James Delingpole and believes everything coming from the mouth of the dolt.
Posted by: terra | July 10, 2011 at 05:48 PM
Terra - don't you listen - Your mates in Labor even admit that THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED. How long have you been reading scientific literature? You might like to know I have read scientific literataure (and history - ancient & modern ((pre-industrial)) for 40 years and have spoken on it. What you are saying shows YOU ARE THE DOLT. Wake up for goodness sake.
Posted by: Georgina | July 11, 2011 at 01:09 PM