UN climate chief: Global financial institutions really need to start tripling their renewable-energy investment, stat

posted at 9:21 pm on January 15, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Because United Nations bureaucrats seem uniquely incapable of looking for solutions beyond collectivization, redistribution, and mutual impoverishment. Via the Guardian:

The United Nations climate chief has urged global financial institutions to triple their investments in clean energy to reach the $1 trillion a year mark that would help avert a climate catastrophe.

In an interview with the Guardian, the UN’s Christiana Figueres urged institutions to begin building the foundations of a clean energy economy by scaling up their investments.

Global investment in clean technologies is running at about $300bn a year – but that is nowhere where it needs to be, Figueres said.

“From where we are to where we need to be, we need to triple, and we need to do that – over the next five to 10 years would be best – but certainly by 2030,” she said. …

But investment has lagged far behind. “What we need to have invested in the energy sector and in the green infrastructure in order to make the transformation that we need in order to stay within 2C is one trillion dollars a year and we are way, way behind that,” Figueres said.

Actually, forget triple — Bloomberg released the data for 2013 renewables investment figures today, and the net value fell for a second year in a row. That means that, to reach that much-vaunted $1 trillion total, investment would now have to quadruple:

The decline in investment in renewable energy accelerated in 2013 as the cost of solar panels and wind farms fell, unsettling investor confidence in alternatives to fossil fuels.

The value of deals to finance clean energy and efficiency projects fell 12 percent to $254 billion last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s quicker than the 9.1 percent drop in 2012 from record level of $318 billion the year before.

The findings released at a United Nations meeting in New York mark a setback for efforts to boost funding for cleaner forms of energy. Annual investment in renewables must double to $500 billion by the end of this decade and then again to $1 trillion by 2030 to limit global warming, according to Ceres, a Boston-based group advising investors on sustainability issues.

Uncertainty isn’t exactly a condition that encourages robust investment, and unfortunately for the renewable technologies these globalist-minded bureaucrats claim to favor, 2013 was one long year of retrenchment for several of the European countries that had been enthusiastically trying their darndest to artificially create favorable market conditions for renewables via government “investment,” subsidization, and forced infrastructure transitions. Spain, Germany, and the European Commission have all been furiously hitting the breaks on further distorting their energy markets with overly ambitious top-down policies as energy prices have skyrocketed — and arbitrary investment goals based on political goals rather than practicality is not going to help these technologies achieve the price efficiency that could actually turn them into viable options in the long run.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Why not multiply it a hundred fold, then we would have no energy and no money.

VorDaj on January 15, 2014 at 9:27 PM

Completely OT but a lot more important.

New season of “Duck Dynasty” in TONIGHT!

Tune in and make GLAAD sad.

;->

PolAgnostic on January 15, 2014 at 9:32 PM

Why not multiply it a hundred fold, then we would have no energy and no money.

VorDaj on January 15, 2014 at 9:27 PM

What if we raised the minimum wage to 10,000 an hour? We’d have no problem then. They could tax 90% and we’d be well off and the Earth would be saved.

I can fix any problem. ANY.

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 15, 2014 at 9:33 PM

Take your hands from my pocket and stop with the major league extortion racket. How about that UN Climate Chief?

So the UN is concerned about ‘climate change’ and wants us all to get on board to ‘do something’?

Let’s start with shutting down the UN building that has an ENORMOUS ‘carbon footprint’ and then let’s end all of the ancillary expenses like air travel and travel by private automobiles and commercial taxi’s for all those diplomats and the staff and service staff that attends them.

If NYC doesn’t like the loss of revenue from the traffic they’re getting from the diplomats and staff of the UN, too bad. NYC should have thought of that just as New Yorkers in general should have thought of that when they decided to embrace the Left.

thatsafactjack on January 15, 2014 at 9:35 PM

They’re getting desperate.

Socratease on January 15, 2014 at 9:38 PM

MeanWhile, in China:

Beijing, Beijing, CN
5m
Beijing air pollution at dangerously high levels; authorities say severe pollution likely to continue through Friday – @AP
read more on bigstory.ap.org

canopfor on January 15, 2014 at 9:40 PM

“Spain, Germany, and the European Commission have all been furiously hitting the breaks”

That would brakes, not breaks.

Intrepid767 on January 15, 2014 at 9:44 PM

UN climate chief: Global financial institutions really need to start tripling their renewable-energy investment, stat

The operative word is bolded.

Note that he is telling financial institutions, which by definition invest “other people’s money”, how and where to invest “other people’s money”.

How much of his own investments does the UN climate chief have invested in “renewable-energy”. And whatever it is, will he be tripling it?

Socialists have a completely different definition of the word investment than everyone else. Socialists don’t really believe in private property (except for their own). They view everything as essentially collectively owned, to be allocated and distributed as self-styled socialist social engineers think is best. For our own good, of course.

farsighted on January 15, 2014 at 9:44 PM

Steven Goddard has a post on this: UN Wants To Steal $1 Trillion Per Year For Global Warming Scam. My comment:

The same leftists that push AGW want a global leftist dictatorship.
The leftists just aren’t getting what they want (like a cap & trade bill with apocalyptic 83% CO2 cuts). So they say: democracy doesn’t work, we need a dictatorship. They say: we need to be ruled by “the top 5%, or the top 1%.” Incidentally, does Harvard educated MIT professor Richard Lindzen [a skeptic] qualify as top 1%? Um, no. What we have is a bunch of leftists that jumped on a quasi-scientific theory of climate change, and these leftists decided that we need to have a bunch of leftist tyrants ruling us so that they can be unhindered in implementing their deathly policies, the same policies that the leftists had been advocating way before the gwarming scare.
“The Environmentalist’s Dream is an Egalitarian Society based on: rejection of economic growth, a smaller population, eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less.” -Aaron Wildavsky, UC Berkeley
“We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster… to bomb us into the stone age, where we might live like Indians, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion, guilt free at last.” -Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.” -John Holdren (1973), O’s Science Czar
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -Maurice Strong, ex UNEP Director
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society.” -the UN Agenda 21 Report
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. global warming.. would fit the bill…we believe humanity requires a .. common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or….one invented for the purpose.” -Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

anotherJoe on January 15, 2014 at 9:45 PM

Don’t you find it interesting that alarmists always, ALWAYS give themselves a 15-20 year window for the Big Bad Whatever to appear? That way, they’re in the nonfalsifiable window–that space of time when they think they can scare you enough to give away freedoms, money, time, energy, and did I mention freedoms–and they have the wiggle room to keep moving it down the road.

Global catastrophe always looms a mere 15-20 years away, just enough for me to make my FU money off your gullibility. It’s like snake oil salesmen coming through town, saying their magic tonic will definitely work in the next few days (after I’ve already left town).

SmallishBees on January 15, 2014 at 9:52 PM

Because United Nations bureaucrats seem uniquely incapable of looking for solutions beyond collectivization, redistribution, and mutual impoverishment.

Further evidence the United Nations bureaucracy is dominated by socialists.

The ones that aren’t socialists just want more of other people’s money for themselves, their buddies, and their country, in that order.

In fact, if they can’t do that they would be happy just taking as much money as they can from those who have more than they have and burn it, out of spite. Which is about what would happen to a lot of the money “invested” in “renewable energy”.

farsighted on January 15, 2014 at 9:53 PM

Shut … UP ….. Mr Figueres.
.
Here’s the new ‘man-made-global-climate-change’ panic button., and it’s the opposite of “global warming.”

listens2glenn on January 15, 2014 at 9:54 PM

The left is in a fever pitch to loot whatever wealth is left.

Murphy9 on January 15, 2014 at 10:04 PM

…calling Al Gore!

KOOLAID2 on January 15, 2014 at 10:08 PM

Never mind the negative rates of return, just pour money into it!

Murphy9 on January 15, 2014 at 10:10 PM

The stupid runs especially thickly along the East River.

MTF on January 15, 2014 at 10:10 PM

Why double down, when you can triple down?

Dongemaharu on January 15, 2014 at 10:13 PM

AGW theory believers say they can predict the climate decades into the future. But they can’t predict the traffic on the freeway next Monday, they can’t tell you where the traffic jams will be. Both are chaotic systems, but traffic has many orders of magnitude fewer variables. And yet it cannot be reliably predicted days into the future, much less decades. Hmmm…

If you explain this to a warmists they will tell you that the larger systems are more predictable, that the energy balance of the earth can be calculated in lump figures without having to know the details or mechanisms that make up the system. But this is yet another theory, one that hasn’t been proven or even demonstrated. Their models failed to predict our current hiatus in warming, they can’t tell us why the temperature at the beginning of the 20th century was what the records tell us it was, the models can’t explain the little ice age, or the medieval warm period, or why Greenland froze over since then, or why the Roman era was so temperate.

They. Just. Don’t. Know.

Socratease on January 15, 2014 at 10:20 PM

AGW theory believers say they can predict the climate decades into the future. But they can’t predict the traffic on the freeway next Monday, they can’t tell you where the traffic jams will be. Both are chaotic systems, but traffic has many orders of magnitude fewer variables. And yet it cannot be reliably predicted days into the future

Christy believes in AGW and can predict traffic days ahead of time. :)

wolly4321 on January 15, 2014 at 10:37 PM

Fap fap fap

John the Libertarian on January 15, 2014 at 10:54 PM

New Yorkers in general should have thought of that when they decided to embrace the Left.

thatsafactjack on January 15, 2014 at 9:35 PM

You know, elevators take a lot of energy to run. I say we turn them off. Those New Yorkers could use a little exorcise.

BDavis on January 16, 2014 at 2:58 AM

The left is in a fever pitch to loot whatever wealth is left.

Murphy9 on January 15, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Followed by destroying our Evil Civilization (TM) and killing everyone who isn’t exactly like them.

I.E., finishing the job they didn’t quite get done in the 20th Century.

clear ether

eon

eon on January 16, 2014 at 6:26 AM

furiously hitting the breaks brakes

FIFY, Erika.

Those New Yorkers could use a little exorcise.

BDavis on January 16, 2014 at 2:58 AM

Typo or snark? ;)

GWB on January 16, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Socratease on January 15, 2014 at 10:20 PM

I would just like them to predict the climate for a known year in the past. Their models can’t even do that but they want us to believe that they do work for the future.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 16, 2014 at 9:10 AM

The UN climate chief is not talking about HIS money. If his advice is followed and the financial institutions fall into some degree of chaos, it is likely HE won’t be directly affected, except maybe peripherally. And even if some folks went up to him and said, “look what happened”, he would simply reply, “you didn’t have to listen to me” and walk away.

Very easy to advocate a course of action if you are not going to be directly impacted.

Russ808 on January 16, 2014 at 6:17 PM