Meanwhile the “means”, or the final cost to taxpayers of all that endless, tedious virtual signaling, was almost never touched upon for a reason.
For those who missed it, here is an excerpt of what we wrote back on October 14, shortly after Bank of America published the definitive compendium on climate change and the coming Net Zero (i.e., great reset) world, and which we discussed in depth:
“while it is handy to have a centralized compendium of the data, a 5 minute google search can provide all the answers that are “accepted” dogma by the green lobby. But while we don’t care about the charts, that cheat sheets, or the propaganda, what we were interested in was the bottom line – how much would this green utopia cost, because if the “net zero”, “ESG”, “green” narrative is pushed so hard 24/7, you know it will cost a lot.
Turns out it does. A lot, lot.
Responding rhetorically to the key question, “how much will it cost?”, BofA cuts to the chase and writes $150 trillion over 30 years – some $5 trillion in annual investments – amounting to twice current global GDP!
Cutting to the chase, we said that “if it sounds like “the crusade against climate change” is one giant con game meant to enrich a handful of kleptocrats here and now, while the nebulous benefits – and the all too certain debt and hyperinflation – of this revolutionary overhaul of the global economy are inherited by future generations, it’s because that’s precisely what it is.” This was BofA’s startling admission of the above, as excerpted from the report’s Q&A on the Climate Change Conference (COP 26):
Q: What is the economic impact of net zero?
A: The inflation impact of elevated net zero funding will not be insignificant but the impact looks manageable at 1% to 3% per annum depending on central bank monetization rates, particularly if government spending is targeted and contributes to accelerate the rate of global GDP growth. The IEA also has a productive outlook for their net zero scenario, where the change in the annual growth rate of GDP accelerates by somewhere between 0.3% and 0.5% on a sustained basis over the next 10 years as a result of a shift to a green economy.
So, much more QE for the next 30 years, check.
---What about inflation? Oh, there will be plenty of that too. As BofA admits, “green bond purchases could result in a 1% to 3% inflation p.a. shock”
And just so readers know what to BofA looks “manageable” here it is: this is inflation on top of whatever inflation is already in the economy. Of course, if central banks have to “foot” 50%, 80%, or more, well… it gets much worse.
To be sure, while having a realistic estimate of just how much this unprecedented global “grand reset” will cost is imperative, establishment politicians can simply say that the numbers are ridiculous, and the cost will never be as high as the staggering BofA estimate of between $100 and $150 trillion.
Unless, of course, one of the most important politicians and officials of the current globalist regime confirms it. Which is precisely what happened this week during the Keynote Remarks from US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who was speaking at the COP26 “net zero” climate change conference in Glasgow (or Edinburgh if you are CNN). Here are the key excerpts:
Keynote Remarks by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland at the Finance Day Opening Event
Glasgow and COP26 is a pivotal moment at the start of this decisive decade of climate action. The climate crisis is
already here. This is not a challenge for future generations, but one we must confront today.Rising to this challenge will require the wholesale transformation of our carbon-intensive economies. It’s a global transition for which we have an estimated price tag: some have put the global figure between $100 and $150 trillion over the next three decades. At the same time, addressing climate change is the greatest economic opportunity of our time.
It is what is coming next that is terrifying:
And later this afternoon I will be speaking specifically on what we are doing to mobilize climate finance to emerging and developing economies, including our engagement with the multilateral development banks and institutions. I hope you will join me to hear more.
These programs are exciting. But as big as the public sector effort is across all our countries, the $100-trillion plus price tag to address climate change globally is far bigger.
These numbers are simply staggering, and as Yellen concedes, “The gap between what governments have and what the world needs is large, and the private sector needs to play a bigger role.”
More than 450 firms representing $130 trillion of assets now belong to the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), almost double the roughly $70 trillion when GFANZ was launched in April, according to a progress report published by the coalition on Wednesday. Among the finance groups signed up to Gfanz are HSBC, Bank of America and Santander.
“We now have the essential plumbing in place to move climate change from the fringes to the forefront of finance so that every financial decision takes climate change into account,” said Carney, the former governor of the Bank of England who has been chair of Gfanz since its launch in April.
We refer readers to what we wrote previously, that – as even BofA
admits, the funding need for the global “net zero” grand reset is all
about greenlighting the biggest QE episode in history, one which will
spark an inflationary inferno, debase the dollar, unleash digital
central bank currencies, saddle the world with hundreds of trillions
more in unrepayable debt, all the while making the rich far richer than
they are now." ZeroHedge