moonbattery logo

Jan 22 2013

How Much Would It Cost to Believe in Global Warming?

Mixed in with the platitudes and double talk of his second inaugural address, Obama indicated his actual priorities for the next four long years by extolling the global warming hoax. To get at least a vague idea of how much the idea that authoritarian bureaucrats can control the weather through hyper-regulation, wealth redistribution, and central planning could cost us, let’s turn to the most vociferous advocate of the climate change movement, the odious United Nations, which admitted a couple years ago that its schemes would cost $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years:

That works out to a grand total of $76 trillion, over 40 years — or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year). It’s all part of a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution” called for in the annual report. Except that the U.N. will apparently control this next industrial revolution.

Where will the money come from? From the shrinking number of Americans who are still pulling the cart instead of riding in it.

Don’t worry, the UN won’t really spend $76 trillion on this farce. Once the US economy collapses under the weight of Obama’s spending and is replaced by something along the line of Cuba’s, there will be just barely enough money to keep a government boot on everyone’s face. Flaky lies like global warming won’t be necessary at that point.

On a tip from Bob Roberts.

Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on Facebook


  • Buffalobob

    Karma is a beautiful thing. I read today that the people in NY are freezing and are paying higher prices for heating with natural gas. The shortage of pipelines and delivery are part of the problem. Isn’t southern NY sitting on a huge supply of natural gas in the Marcellus fields. Are the politicians/NY governer being influenced by the anti-fracking nitwits to the detriment of their constituents?

  • wildman

    Actually it will cost only 1 mill. the rest will be consumed by the environmental impact statements and UN overhead.

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    I knew I saw that figure 1.9 trillion somewhere.
    Then it came to me.
    This is the exact same amount those bat-sh** crazy enviroloonies claim “climate change will cost us annually if we do nothing.
    http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/fcost.pdf
    Four
    global warming impacts alone—hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and
    water costs—will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion
    annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100.

  • IslandLifer

    Economic collapse is how it will go. These second amendment smoke and mirrors, well it’s just that. Sure hope you guys are buying grains and dried goods. Perhaps buying hardcover instructional books? Meeting and discussing with locals along with family and friends? You bet guns and ammo are extremely important but without strength & knowledge they are NOTHING!!!

  • fubar

    >>Are the politicians/NY governer being influenced by the anti-fracking nitwits to the detriment of their constituents?

    Yes. They can thank Josh Fox for that. and the hollyweird celebrities who don’t have to worry about heating their homes or such nonsense.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/01/19/Bus-Tour-Brings-Anti-Fracking-Celebrities-to-Dimock-PA

  • Dick Richard

    The Greenhouse Effect and human-influenced climate change are proven scientific facts. Yes, the climate changes in cycles, but we as a species are accelerating the process by pumping the atmosphere with carbon and methane, the real greenhouse gas which is produced largely by commercial cattle.

    The real problem that should scare even the most ignorant anti-climate change activist is pollution. We have flooded the air, land and sea with toxic chemicals (from fracking, natural gas extraction, industrial waste dumps, sewage, byproducts of combustion by vehicles and factories, and oil spills) and are driving species to extinction by overfishing, habitat destruction, and poaching. These species hold critical roles in their ecosystems, and extinction could jeopardize hundreds of others.

    The problem is how we are dealing with these issues. Most environmentalists push for wind and solar power to fight pollution and the Greenhouse Effect, but make the other issues worse by destroying delicate desert biomes to install fields of solar panels, as well as killing thousands of birds with wind farms. The easiest way to prevent these problems is to install solar panels on the excess flat space in cities, especially on roofs, as well as installing small wind turbines and solar panels on homes to provide power.

    The point is that conservation is incredibly important, even if you don’t believe in proven things like the Greenhouse Effect and man-influenced climate change. Oil is running out, and non-renewable resources like gas are not viable solutions. The energy crisis can only be solved with renewable energy sources, but these must be implemented in a way that will prevent pollution, habitat loss, and extinction.

    It is in humanity’s best interest to keep the world in working order. If we fuck the earth senseless, we will be fucked. I implore you all to consider my points without bias and check my sources before making a decision about this issue. Closed-mindedness gets us nowhere fast. Thanks for reading and God bless you.

    Sources:

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Habitat-Loss.aspx

    http://www.epa.gov/p2/

  • Winston Smith

    Dick Dick, you quote government sites (EPA, NASA) now controlled by Moonbats and econut websites. Wow, real objective.

    Even if we wasted 2 TRILLION a year on the nonsense Comrade Obama was spouting it would make no difference. You really think the rest of the developing world would go green too and live on little more than wind and solar? Dream on. No way Americans are going to stand for turning back the clock and consume energy at the rate we did 100 years ago. Gas and oil are pefectly viable as America sits on energy reserves that would easily last another 100 years until exotic forms of power like nuclear fusion and ready. Funny how liberals, esepcially wealthy ones like Al Gore, spout off about conservation for “Proles” while they consume energy with reckless abandon – flying around in private jets and behemoths like Air Farce One while their homes are heated to toasty levels and are lit up like Christmas Trees 24/7/365 – they can afford higher priced converntional energy. They dont care. Solar panels? Power must be stored in huge banks of high priced TOXIC batteries. Wind turbines (what about all the birds that are murdered by those things – not to mention the huge costs – even when government subsidized. Imagine if everyone used wind and solar – where would the money come to keep energy affordable? Pinhead Utopian liberals dont care if the Proles are freezing in the dark. The true nature of a liberal progressive is a tale of oppression and enslaving the people to serve THE STATE.

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    ., but we as a species are accelerating the process by pumping the atmosphere with carbon and methane, the real greenhouse gas which is produced largely by commercial cattle.
    Dick Richard
    You had better catch up with your own talking points
    This is from one of your own
    http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/prof-debunks-flatulence-as-major-cause-of-global-warming/article_3340e03d-a03a-5469-ae2d-fa06f23cecb6.html
    Also if one counts the grass needed to feed the cow
    http://worstellfarms.com/greenhouse-gas-facts-grass-fed-cattle.php#.UP_kaGeDo_w
    But it’s easier to blame a few farmers than to take every bodies car, right?
    _______

    We have flooded the air, land and sea with toxic chemicals (from fracking, natural gas extraction, industrial waste dumps, sewage, byproducts of combustion by vehicles and factories, and oil spills) and are driving species to extinction by overfishing, habitat destruction, and poaching.

    Pollution ?
    I thought we were on climate change
    Why is it that you enviro nut jobs demand credit for your “good intentions” even though the results of your policies are MORE pollution ?
    You subsidize ethanol as an “alternative fuel”. Yet ethanol requires lots of corn. More corn results in more pesticide and fertilizer applications.
    So what about electric cars ?
    Never mind all the lead mining to build that big ol’ battery.
    But it will run on clean electricity, you say.
    Can’t get it from coal, because they are being “necessarily bankrupted”
    So we build natural gas peaker plants.
    Oh wait, you greenies don’t like fracking

    You say oil is running out.
    And it is, if one were to disallow new technology such as fracking.
    You say you “care” about the environment.
    Which is dirtier ?
    Standard methods of oil production in third world countries ?
    Or fracking on US soil under US pollution laws ?
    Please answer these two questions if you wish to continue
    Otherwise, have a good day.

  • Ghost of FA Hayek

    So this is why he ordered Vegas to be cleared out
    http://news.yahoo.com/las-vegas-fumes-over-obamas-anti-tourism-rant-224037196.html
    Bathhouse Barry wanted space in the pool

  • Dick Richard

    I’m not going to argue with either of you because you hurled strawman arguments like 4th graders. You guys are beyond reason. I’m not a liberal either, I’m a libertarian. Just cause someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are a wacko liberal environut pinko queer muslim, and even if they were, that doesn’t immediately let you discount them. Generalizations promote division, and division is why our country is failing.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy