3.8 Trillion Green Investment Yields No Change in Fossil Fuel Consumption and Related Climate Impact
Economist and Global Head of Commodities Research in the Global Investment Research Division at Goldman Sachs.
CNBC’s JOE KERNEN: “OPEC’s back in charge because we haven’t invested in alternatives. That’s all Europe did, was invest in new age alternatives.”
JEFF CURRIE (an Economist and Global Head of Commodities Research in the Global Investment Research Division at Goldman Sachs.): “No, because we didn’t”
KERNEN: “Are you saying natural gas and nuclear and coal are alternatives, or do you mean pie in the sky, wind and solar”
CURRIE: “Alternative to OPEC production whether it’s gas, oil, solar, nuclear, wind, you name it. But in fact, let’s look at how much did the greens investment give us?”
Here’s a stat for you, as of January of this year. At the end of last year, overall, fossil fuels represented 81 percent of overall energy consumption.
Ten years ago, they were at 82. So though, all that investment in renewables, you’re talking about 3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuel consumption from 82 to 81 percent, of the overall energy consumption.
But you know, given the recent events and what’s happened with the loss of gas and replacing it with coal, that number is likely above 82. So, when we think about what those renewables have added, because remember, you’re adding capacity, but the capacity utilization factor is quite low on them. And then you have Europe making the investment in there, but China making further investments. The net of it is clearly we haven’t made any progress.
And I think the key point that I was saying is that why OPEC is in the driver’s seat, you know, at an unprecedented level is because, we inclusively of everybody outside of OPEC have not adequately invested in overall energy production, infrastructure, and the ability to supply and deliver it.
This interview really bothered me. As a country we have spent 3.8 Trillion on Green Investment and it has yielded NO change in fossil fuel
In fact, it will go up this year and next. If you read my article below you will see a possible alternative suggestion for nuclear.
In addition, the program I suggest would yield $2,800,000 real high paying jobs in construction, science, engineering and technology and leave 1.8 Trillion for Alternative Energy Investment.
My Take:
For 2 Trillion, not 3.8 Trillion, the United States could have built 400 nuclear plants and become 100% independent this year. That would have left 1.8T for Green Initiatives or whatever. In addition, the program I suggest would yield $2,800,000 real high paying jobs in construction, science, engineering and technology and leave 1.8 Trillion for Alternative Energy Investment.
I am not a climate expert but we would be greener than the ink on a dollar bill at this point.
What gives?
