• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • $76 Trillion to Engineer a Green Economy?

    A new report from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs demonstrates that the U.N. has no business meddling in economic or social issues.

    In a recently released World Economic and Social Survey entitled “The Great Green Technological Transformation,” the U.N. says our governments need to spend $1.9 trillion a year for 40 years in order to successfully transition to a global green economy. That’s a $76 trillion price tag for the green initiative, an initiative that won’t bring about economic prosperity nor improve our environmental well being.

    Let’s take a step back to demonstrate the U.N.’s line of thinking. The U.N. has concerns that the earth is on course for disaster and in its overview of the survey lays out three possible solutions.

    Solution 1: “One option for achieving this would be to limit income growth, as it would also, given existing production methods, limit the growth of resource use, waste and pollutants. However, doing so would complicate efforts to meet the development objective and would thus not be in the interest of developing countries, which are home to the vast majority of the world’s population.”

    It’s safe to say that limiting income growth is not in the interest of any country and that doing so would harm our ability to protect and care for the environment. Not only do countries with higher income per capita and greater economic freedom have better environmental records, but they’re also better equipped to handle natural disasters. See Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

    Solution 2: “Reducing population growth could be another option; but this could be achieved more effectively by improving living standards.”

    Population control is a popular topic for those who advocate for sustainable development, but it is not the cause of poverty. Further, improving living standards in the second solution runs contradictory to limiting income growth proposed in the first.

    Solution 3: “Reducing non-renewable energy and resource use, reducing waste and pollutants, and reversing land degradation and biodiversity losses would then seem key to greening the economy.”

    The rest of the overview focuses on a global commitment to a green revolution and the notion that government should “promote the development of a broad portfolio of technologies (including renewable such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower) along the full chain of technology development (research, development and demonstration, market formation, diffusion and commercial adaptation).”

    Notice that the largest supplier of carbon-free electricity, nuclear power, does not merit a mention. The only time nuclear receives a mention in the text of the overview is on graphs and when it says, “Global replacement costs of existing fossil fuel and nuclear power infrastructure are estimated at, at least, $15 trillion–$20 trillion.”

    This U.N. report is a recipe to keep the developing world in poverty and with poor environmental standards. This proposal will do nothing to help tackle the real environmental challenges we face. It’s important to distinguish that the U.N. report focuses on reducing carbon dioxide, which is non-toxic and not a health hazard. It does not emphasize that these countries need access to clean drinking water, proper sewage systems, and other taken-for-granted needs that we’ve grown accustomed to having.

    Furthermore, the developing world has serious economic challenges, such as gaining access to reliable electricity. Over 1.4 billion people in the developing world, mostly Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, are without electricity. Yet the U.N. wants to drive a global change that would force pricier, intermittent electricity to these areas. These countries do not need windmills and solar panels; they need property rights, the rule of law, and free trade. These are fundamentally critical to improved economic and environmental well being.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to $76 Trillion to Engineer a Green Economy?

    1. joe says:

      Enviroism is the new feudalism…to diminish and control the masses. It does not apply to the rich. It makes the rich feel richer.

    2. Mike_in_Detroit says:

      Obama's Green Program failed simply because he and his team neglected to buy anything that would have resulted in a game changer. His Stimulus money backfired because too much money went to businesses that "could have" made a difference, yet only bolstered their bank accounts. Too bad we'll never see any of our tax dollars returned to us.

      The Obama Team should have:

      a) Made $5 Billion available to build a large number pf Poly silicon Manufacturing Plants to make the raw materials for Photovoltaic Panels so cheap that many new businesses could evolve from the new source of raw materials. Put another $5 Billion into Trade and Alternative Energy Training and get Solar ramped up as a US Made source of energy. Then begin mass installation on as many US households as possible.

      b) Implemented a National Telecommuting Law to get as many cars and vehicles off the road as possible, so a true measure of how much fuel we really need for our national survival. With a real view of fuel consumption that would be radically reduced, we could then accurately develop our off-shore oil fields with economy of scale that matches need, not wall street greed.

      c) Purchased or set aside a large area (Like East of San Diego) that can serve as a Solar Array field. There is a lot of desert out there waiting to be developed, and the Federal Government (that's us BTW) control a lot of it.

      d) Fund the replacement of the Space Shuttle Program, that could serve as the next generation of Space Systems and Services Development and then launched mission after mission to build space based solar plants. The electrical power that can be generated 7X24 is tremendous and the power can be transported to ground based receiving stations using microwaves or something similar. San Clemente Island off the California coast is a Navy test range. Setting aside a portion of the island to act as the receiving station would be easy to do, and the power can be converted back into electricity onsite, then be used to hydroelectrically split sea water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen can be piped back to the mainland.

      e) The Stimulus money should have been put to use developing Desalinization facilities in Florida, along the gulf coast and up and down both our eastern and western coastlines. We need fresh water as a nation for many things.

      f) Mass Transit and Lighter then Air – we need mass transit because it uses much less energy to provide services to our nations travelers. We also need something like what the Germans had in the 1930's – Zeppelins – but much more modernized and use Helium (which we have the worlds largest supplies of).

      If he had done all these – he might have been President for two more terms. the dumb schmuck listened to the wrong guys and had a bad playbook.

    3. the old barter system works with 15 times my 1970 cost for green economy today for me has given me a new bioactivist idea…watch this space

    4. thezenhaitian says:

      "Further, improving living standards in the second solution runs contradictory to limiting income growth proposed in the first."

      Limiting income growth wouldn't be a problem if vital resources were nationalized to meet basic humanitarian needs such as, food, shelter, education & health care

      "Notice that the largest supplier of carbon-free electricity, nuclear power, does not merit a mention."

      So now, YOU'VE contradicted yourself… carbon dioxide is non-toxic and does not present a health hazard.

    5. Mike_in_Detroit says:

      I didn't think you guys would have actually posted my original comments. Why are the Conservative Groups afraid of alternative opinions? I am a registered Republican after all.

    6. Bobbie says:


      It's a waste and highly inefficient. But Obama seems to love spending money without strings attached, like responsibly, efficiently and in the best interest of AMERICA!!! that's asking too much…

    7. Nicolas Loris Nicolas Loris says:

      @ thezenhaitian – I mentioned nuclear to demonstrate the hypocrisy and true agenda of the report, not to promote nuclear as a carbon free source of energy.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.