Top consulting firm McKinsey has calculated that the net-zero emissions targets set by global governments and championed by the United Nations would would cost the public a staggering $275 trillion by 2050, or around $30 billion per day for the next 25 years.
The number would account for more than the U.S. government currently spends per day, with the targets especially a part of Boris and Carrie Johnson’s green agenda in the United Kingdom. President Biden recently committed America to the same 2050 target, telling the COP26 conference of his regime’s “overall long-term strategy that outlines [and] how we’ll get to net zero –- net zero emissions by 2050.”
The stunning numbers would increase spending on physical assets for energy and land-use systems by $3.5 trillion. The amount is the equivalent of half of all profits and one-quarter of total tax revenue generated by companies globally in 2020. McKinsey stated that their calculations were significantly higher than most other available estimates.
“While these spending requirements are large and financing has yet to be established, many investments have favorable return profiles and should not be seen as merely costs,” the report claims.
The energy and land-use systems used for the report include power, industry, mobility, buildings, agriculture, forestry and other land use, and waste. All will need to be transformed in order to hypothetically mitigate a global temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
McKinsey stated that demand for certain products, particularly internal combustion engine cars, would have to eventually cease. Although every sector of the economy appears exposed in the push to meet net zero, those that emit significant quantities of green house gases are most at-risk.
The report pushes for the use of low-emission energy such as hydrogen. All major manufacturing, industrial, and agricultural processes would lead to a decrease in consumer goods deemed “emissions-intensive.”
“The economic transformation required to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 will be massive in scale and complex in execution, yet the costs and dislocations that would arise from a more disorderly transition would likely be far greater, and the transition would prevent the further buildup of physical risks.
“We find that the transition would be universal, significant, and front-loaded, with uneven effects on sectors, geographies, and communities, even as it creates growth opportunities,” the report concluded.
The recent inflationary pressures and general financial mismanagement globally has caused some to speculate over full currency crashes, with long-term social credit replacements for traditional financial transitions.