By Bud Bromley | Jan. 26, 2022
Consulting firm McKinsey estimates $9 trillion per year spending needed to comply with the Paris climate accord! Running that out to the 2050 date for 50% achievement of the “net zero” plan implies spending over $275 trillion. That’s $9 TRILLION PER YEAR …all loss and no gain. No reduction in CO2 and no reduction in warming will result.
McKinsey is a global consulting firm and they are usually expensive. Who is paying them?
Links to download the full report and exec summary are here: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
Down at the bottom on McKinsey’s reports on this, there is a place to register for their online web conference. It will begin 6 am Hawaii time on February 1, 2022.
I registered for their conference and sent an email to their editor, as follows:
To whom it may concern.
This is a shock and awe letter to McKinsey executives and editors.
Is there a chemist or scientist in your organization? Did they have any input to this report? Is this reported anywhere?
Thousands of chemists like me, physicists and other scientists and engineers know “net zero” is not plausible scientifically, nor is it needed. For example, “Stop treating it [i.e. AGW…human-caused global warming/climate change] as a worthy opponent. Do not ascribe reasonableness to the other side. It is not reasonable, not true, not even plausible.” ~ Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“More carbon dioxide will certainly increase the productivity of agriculture and forestry. Over the past century, the earth has already become noticeably greener as a result of the modest increase of CO2, from about 0.03 percent to 0.04 percent of atmospheric molecules. More CO2 has made a significant contribution to the increased crop yields of the past 50 years, as well. The benefits to plants of more CO2 are documented in hundreds of scientific studies.”
“There is no climate emergency. Americans should not be stampeded into a disastrous climate crusade. The medieval crusades did far more harm than good, destroying the lives of many decent people of all faiths, and leaving a bitter legacy that complicates international relations and social harmony to this day. A climate crusade that destroys economies and ultimately lives will be as bad, or worse.” ~ Professor Richard S. Lindzen, PhD., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Professor William Happer, PhD. Princeton University.
You might find interesting this short lecture by Professor Happer. https://budbromley.blog/2021/12/06/professor-william-happer-on-co2-and-global-warming/
$9 trillion spent per year would not reduce warming nor would it reduce net global average CO2 concentration nor its growth rate. There would be no measurable effect on net global average CO2 concentration. That is because the phase-state equilibrium that determines the CO2 gas partition ratio between ocean surface and the air above that surface is independent of the source of the CO2. The source of the CO2 is not a variable in the CO2 concentration. CO2 concentration and its partition ratio between air and ocean are variables ONLY of ocean surface temperature primarily, and in local condition salinity, alkalinity and partial pressure changes of CO2 gas in air and ocean surface due to winds, currents, storms, waves, etc.
‘Emission of human-produced CO2 is offset by an equivalent amount of absorption of CO2 into ocean, soils, lakes and plants,’ referencing atmospheric physicist Murry Salby, PhD.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration today is the same as it would be if humans never existed. The percentage of CO2 in air which is originally emitted from human sources has no effect on net global atmospheric average CO2 concentration. Local CO2 partial pressure increases significantly around your face when you exhale, very localized CO2 concentration increases from about 0.04% to 4%, that is about 100 times increase immediately around you…with every exhaled breath. That very localized partial pressure change is rapidly distributed and remotely re-balances to the CO2 partial pressure ratio required for equilibrium according to Henry’s Law at the local conditions, which is dominantly by ocean surface temperature. The CO2 molecules do not move to the ocean. The CO2 partial pressure gradient is distributed not the molecules.
This has been understood by real scientists (as compared to climate modelers) since about 1830 when William Henry documented the science known as Henry’s Law. Today, Henry’s Law is used in chemistry and physics in many multi-billion dollar per year industries, e.g. scientific instruments (my background) such as gas chromatography, and also in fermentation beverages, chemical plants, etc. This is not arcane or out of date science, though it is clearly not understood or ignored by politicians, media, IPCC, etc. Tables of Henry’s Law coefficients derived for various purpose are found in text books, online workstations for chemists, and reference handbooks found in almost all chemistry labs. No amount of politics or expense will change atmospheric CO2 concentration.
The area of ocean surface above 25.6C has been slowly increasing since about 1918. That is the reason net CO2 concentration has been slowly increasing. And by the way, that increasing CO2 trend has brought us many decades of increasing greening of the earth, increasing crop yields, etc. Above 25.6 C (the tropics) ocean surface emits CO2. Below 25.6 C (higher latitudes) ocean surface absorbs CO2.
This of course begs the question: why spend any money on a futile effort to reduce atmospheric CO2?
So, my question again, is there a chemist or physical scientist in your house who has reviewed your report? Is this reported anywhere?