…Whose Money is it, Anyway?…
According to many people, the world needs to invest $4 trillion a year to transition to a carbon-free economy.
The WSJ article said that $4 trillion is not a large sum.
It quotes the CEO of the Bank of America, Brian Moynihan, who said: “If there’s a revenue stream, then the funding is infinite.”
In other words, if there are investment possibilities, then businesses will provide all the funds that are needed.
This assumes the investments are profitable, otherwise the money has to come from the government.
But if subsidies are needed to make the investments worthwhile for businesses, then the money is also coming from the government.
What are the investments needed to fight so-called climate change to achieve net-zero carbon?
(Actually they mean, net-zero CO2, an invisible, odorless gas, that also happens to be essential for life on Earth.)
The investments needed to stop using fossil fuels, the target of climate activists, are primarily for:
- Wind turbines
- Solar installations
- Battery factories
- Charging stations
- Hydrogen
- Removing CO2 from the atmosphere
Yet none of these investments are profitable on their own, i.e., without subsidies.
They are only profitable if government prevents the use of natural gas and coal, or mandates, either outright or by penalizing CO2 emissions, the use of battery-powered vehicles, or by providing subsidies.
Perhaps the CEO of the Bank of America has missed something along the way?
Here is another quote from the WSJ article where Moynihan clarifies his statement:
“Government doesn’t have the money, it has to come from the private sector,” Mr. Moynihan says in an interview. “The role of government is to create revenue streams or demand signals or even mandates that open up the markets so that the money comes in.”
Interesting play on words.
Demand streams? Demand signals?
How does the government create demand streams or signals?
It’s by imposing regulations or mandates that effectively outlaw the use of fossil fuels or that make fossil fuels more expensive so that alternatives appear to be less costly.
We have now come full circle.
The government provides the money with subsidies or by creating an artificial market so that Wall Street can make money.
The WSJ says:
“$4 trillion every year sounds like a lot, but it’s not.”
Moynihan, CEO of the Bank of America, says more than once:
“It’s not that much money.”
Whose money are they talking about?
Actually, it’s your money that comes from taxes or artificially higher prices.
Doesn’t anyone think about what’s good for our country anymore?
. . .
(132)
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2021
Excellent discussion. John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, said this about man-made climate change … “It is the greatest scam in history.”
Thanks. Important comment, referencing the founder of the Weather Channel
This is a huge misallocation of resources. The opportunity cost will be the investments not made in goods and services to the detriment of the population. We should not be phasing out fossil fuels before we have a viable alternative. Wind, solar and the others you mention are not the answer.
Thanks fr your comments.
No question. Wind and solar are not the answer to any of our problems. In fact, they area, as you say, a drag.