The road to net zero. The $275 trillion bet

I am bringing out a short book updating my work on green policy. Titled “The $275 trillion Green Revolution. Will consumers buy it? “it is published by Bite sized books and available on Amazon here:

It looks at two main problems  with this top down movement led  by an international Treaty based elite and by most national governments. It asks how will this all be paid for. It sets out how consumers currently do not buy into the products the governments want them to adopt, from battery cars to heat pumps and from smart meters to non meat diets. It takes the Mc Kinsey global forecast of expenditure needed for transition in the period 2021 to 2050.


  1. Lynn Atkinson
    March 27, 2024

    I’ll buy it. Good for presents too. I think you should put the ‘0’s in. Nobody knows how much a trillion is.

    1. Timaction
      March 27, 2024

      They should all watch “Climate: The Movie ( The cold truth), free on You Tube by Martin Durkin.

      No one will any longer vote for any of the Uni Party and their climate scam!!

      CO2 content of the Earths atmosphere FOLLOWS temperature rises and falls by 100’s of years. We’re living at the tail end of the most recent ice age. There is currently a dearth of CO2, historically levels have been much higher for millions of years typically over 10 times current levels.

      1. Philip Haynes
        March 27, 2024

        All true. Plus even if you believe in the devil plant food gas religion then:- 1 other countries will not go down this mad route anyway, China, US, Russia, India, Africa… 2. The things they claim save CO2 wind farms, solar, EV vehicles, walking, cycling, public transport, heat pumps do not really to any sig. degree anyway.

      2. glen cullen
        March 27, 2024

        Well worth a watch

      3. David+L
        March 27, 2024

        Vimeo have already dropped the film, expect other channels to act similarly as pressure from “above” seeks, yet again, to silence dissent. The propaganda has been so intense I expect most people will remain convinced that NZ is a rational policy until they become directly confronted with its consequences.

        1. Donna
          March 28, 2024

          It’s still on Rumble, Bitchute and X. YouTube has suppressed it if you just put it into the search box but it can still be accessed via The Fat Emperor (Ivor Cummins) on his YouTube site.

          Suppressing debate just proves that the Climate Scam is not based on science. Science depends on new theories being proposed, debated and found to be valid or not. Science is never settled.

          1. glen cullen
            March 28, 2024

            Spot On

        2. glen cullen
          March 28, 2024

          Whatever happened to free speech and the line ‘’I may not agree with you but will defend your right to say it’’ If the science is truly ‘settled’ they have nothing to fear from alternative views

        3. ferdi
          March 29, 2024

          Vimeo have resumed streaming the film. I wonder what persuaded them

      4. Richard1
        March 27, 2024

        It is a well made film, Martin Dunkin knows how to make a polemical film watchable. But its claims are heavily disputed. It would of course be interesting to see a proper debate – after all it put forward a dozen or so charts which are either right or wrong. But debate seems to be banned.

        1. glen cullen
          March 28, 2024

          True scientists would welcome open debate

        2. Original Richard
          March 28, 2024

          Richard1 :

          Why is debate banned as you say? What right have the WEF/UN to say they “own the science”?

          How is it that Parliament/Ofcom are not insisting that the BBC are not allowed to spout their CAGW propaganda without allowing any alternative views such as those of the Nobel prize winning physicist Dr. John Clauser?

          That the BBC are allowed to do this, in a country that believes itself to be a democracy, is shameful and consequently a national disgrace.

    2. Rod Evans
      March 27, 2024

      it is 12 but that won’t help those who have no concept of magnitude. As Dianne demonstrated the political class do not do maths.

      1. Lifelogic
        March 27, 2024

        Give a rate per person or per household.

    3. hefner
      March 27, 2024

      10^12 in most of the world.

    4. Ian wragg
      March 27, 2024

      Yes I’ll buy it. Nice one.

    5. paul cuthbertson
      March 27, 2024

      Net Zero – So much BS. But do not worry Lynn. the tax payer will pay for it,

    6. Mike Wilson
      March 27, 2024

      Even with the 12 zeroes, it still means nothing to most people. I try to imagine a stack of £20 notes with 50,000 notes in the stack. Then I try to imagine a million of those stacks. Even if all the stacks were pit next to each other with the short edges touching, the width of the million stacks each containing a million pounds would be 73 kilometres. What’s a trillion here or there – that seems to be how politicians think.

    7. Lifelogic
      March 27, 2024

      Not sure my wife or children would appreciate it for their birthdays though one daughter is sitting her finals in engineering very shortly. The more I think about the issue with my Maths/Physics/Engineering background the more impossible, expensive and insane the whole war on plant food religion looks.

      Do not underestimate the vast problem of winter electricity demand when/if people switch to heat-pumps and EV cars. A vast investment is needed and this investment will not even be used for most of the year. Currently winter peak day demand is only about double light summer demand. This might well rise to 20 times summer demand on cold winter days. So you need a grid to cope with this and “renewable” generation large enough then gas back up for all this too. They will, I assume want the gas or coal back, up to be Carbon Captures. This will waste load of the energy too say 30% less efficient. The whole agenda is totally insanity.

      Government planned economic suicide.

      1. Peter
        March 27, 2024


        ‘ Not sure my wife or children would appreciate it for their birthdays…’

        I’m surprised that they manage to get a word in edge ways.

  2. Brian Tomkinson
    March 27, 2024

    “The International Treaty based elite”, or globalist cabal as I prefer to describe them, want to control and impoverish the majority of the people for their own benefit. They use their excessive wealth to gain the support of Governments (some people will do anything for money) to impose these nonsense measures all based on lies designed to scare people into acquiescing to their madness. Their evil intent must be recognised, challenged and resisted by all sensible people.

    1. Donna
      March 28, 2024


    2. Rod Evans
      March 28, 2024

      The political class are only focused on their own money and how to increase it. The demise of society and the impoverishment of the people is of zero concern to them. Net Zero advocates doing the bidding of the hyper rich globalists will sacrifice every voter so long as it maintains their control and secure position funded by the tax payers..

  3. Lynn Atkinson
    March 27, 2024

    In fact, I have bought it. Having understood the ‘over round’ operated by all bookies since I could walk, I think I can say this bet is a dead cert to lose!
    I need to open a book – great odds – do you think Johnson might wager he is newly ‘earned’ £5 mill?

    BTW no coverage of the Crocus City Hall terrorist attack, 140 or so dead. Why no coverage?

  4. Butties
    March 27, 2024

    You Said “Net zero is followed by all governments as it is baked into global treaties and UK law. ” As if that is now on Tablets of Stone.

    Well if you accept that then there is no hope for change is there?

    1. glen cullen
      March 27, 2024

      And we thought we were sovereign

  5. Rod Evans
    March 27, 2024

    There is a common misconception surrounding ‘Net Zero’. No matter what the unbelievable number might be that so called experts throw at us, no matter how beyond comprehension the £trillions are, that number is simply to get to so called, Net Zero. The ongoing costs once we are in that new paradigm, requires many more £trillions each and every year post Net Zero’s 2050 timeline.
    It may be worth pointing out the numbers being glibly mentioned a £trillion here a £trillion there are unachievable. There are not enough of us on the planet to do it and the numbers of us are going to be even fewer, dramatically fewer by the end of the century.
    I could mention there is not enough materials, or engineers or time, between now and 2050 to get anywhere near the pointless Net Zero policy, but that might be interpreted as defeatism.
    I call it realism, but the political class don’t want to engage in such lofty ideas as realism these days.

    1. `Peter Lawrenson
      March 27, 2024

      `The Climate Change Act of 2008 was initiated by ed Milliband, without any debate or concept by politicians. And then T May stuck the 2050 date in again without debate. And now ED Milliband is to be our energy secretary again. I despair.

    2. Mickey Taking
      March 28, 2024

      Who decided lets campaign for reducing world average temp. by 1.5C – seems a target people will buy into – everybody will think ‘wow! we can save the world for just 1.5C degrees’.
      Then ideas on what might be needed surfaced, including gigantic manufacturing of solar panels and EV cars from ? China! quelle surprise.!
      Now the roller coaster is moving and nobody has the balls at Country level to announce what a load of bullshit it is, but the beneficiaries keep quiet, don’t kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

  6. glen cullen
    March 27, 2024

    People don’t buy into net-zero because there isn’t any success criteria, there isn’t any measurement of our endeavours …we look out of the window and nothing has changed, check out the summary of ‘Climate the Movie’ on social media

    While I look forward to reading SirJs book, I’d like to hear from our government what our net-zero policies & tax has achieved to date ?

    ‘’Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the UK are provisionally estimated to have decreased by 2.4% in 2022 from 2021, to 331.5 million tonnes (Mt), and total greenhouse gas emissions by 2.2% to 417.1 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e).30 Mar 2023’’

    ‘’The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions fell by 5.7% in 2023 to their lowest level since 1879, according to new Carbon Brief analysis’’

    1. glen cullen
      March 27, 2024

      …so when is enough, enough ….when do we say job done ???

    2. Donna
      March 28, 2024

      So it’s fallen from “a tiny proportion of global CO2 emissions” to “a minuscule proportion of global CO2 emissions.”

      It’s cost us a fortune already and done nothing whatsoever to affect the climate. And if we spend the £trillions needed to turn our minuscule contribution to net zero it will still do nothing whatsoever to affect the climate. But we will be impoverished, bankrupt and a great many people will be dead….because poverty kills.

  7. JayCee
    March 27, 2024

    I enjoyed Martin Durkin’s ‘Climate The Movie’. It presented a ‘fact’-based critique of the climate risk. Now I, for one, have no idea if the data provided is correct or not and we are not given the opportunity to find out whether it is true because those in power are unwilling to debate the fundementals. We are just given a conclusion.
    This reminds me of Brexit.
    This reminds me of the Origin of Covid.
    This reminds me of Covid Forecasting.
    This reminds me of Lockdowns.
    In none of these scenarios was any dissent allowed and in none of these scenarios did the broadcast media offer a platform for differences of opinion.
    We are living in an Oligarchy.

  8. Lifelogic
    March 27, 2024

    To support its report on net zero last year, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) estimated that the transition would have a net cost of £50 billion across all economic sectors by 2050.

    So are these people liars, crooks or complete morons? This is a vast underestimate. The cost will be far, far more than the cost of the Covid lockdowns and Covid vaccines which also did net harm. It will not happen, indeed it cannot happen in practice. But out mad MPs will doubtless waste £trillions trying.

    Record number of boat people for the first three months of the year. Well done (I will stop the boats) Rishi Sunak.

  9. Lifelogic
    March 27, 2024

    So just why does the government want them to adopt these duff products? They do not even save CO2 in most cases. Plus CO2 is not even a problem anyway. It is surely pure corruption, crooks and crony capitalism plus a few deluded priests of the climate alarmist religion. Rather like the “unequivocally safe” Covid vaccines as Sunak assured the house.

    As Neil Oliver puts it:-
    “Rishi Sunak is either lying about the gene therapies pushed as vaccine products, or he hasn’t availed himself of the evidence. The latter would almost be worse than the former.”

  10. a-tracy
    March 27, 2024

    I’d put that image of what £275 trillion looks like on the front cover. A representative image £1m, £1bn, £1tn, £275tn.

    The left has suggested that there are 3m pensioners with household wealth valued at over £1m. A one-off (these ideas are never one-off!) wealth tax on millionaire couples paid at 1% a year for 5 years would raise £260bn from prosperous pensioners. Sitting ducks. Selfish boomers. If the values are in your house and you don’t have the cash, don’t worry, they’ll attach a charge to be taken on sale.

    The non-meat problem is more easily resolved, and children will no longer eat meat when school dinners are free. This will get them used to a fake diet of fake processed food.

  11. Old Albion
    March 27, 2024

    $275 trillion !!!
    I don’t know how much of that will come from UK taxpayers. But I do know at bes, we can remove <0.00045% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Absolute madness.

  12. glen cullen
    March 27, 2024

    Off topic, but the increase of population is an environmental burden –
    Is the government going to investigate every asylum-seeker/refugee that gained ‘right to stay’ by virtue and influence of our Christian Churches, as they could all be false

  13. Guy+Liardet
    March 27, 2024

    Dear John. Does it deal with the modern view that carbon dioxide has a minimal effect on the weather; that there is no climate crisis; that the gentle rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age had been entirely beneficial: that there is not the slightest chance that the rise in CO2 will be checked; that the IPCC cannot point to significant increases in extreme weather events ; that chasing Net Zero is both futile and impossible? That it’s only the West that is wrecking itself; the vast Real World out there is not taking the slightest notice? Have you ever been to what we call the Far East, John? The Cost? How can you estimate cost when you haven’t even defined Net Zero. I weep with rage and frustration

  14. Everhopeful
    March 27, 2024

    This one just did!
    And all those who question JR’s dedication should buy it too.
    One thing we can do.
    Get the message out there. Make the book a huge success.

    1. glen cullen
      March 27, 2024

      Here’s a message that wasn’t on sky or the bbc
      ‘A European Union plan to fight climate change and better protect nature in the 27-nation bloc has been indefinitely postponed’

  15. Mickey Taking
    March 27, 2024

    A fascinating report with key points I read, leaving me with a concern that: (copied directly from the Executive Summary)
    1) net-zero emissions can be achieved if and only if all energy and land-use systems that contribute to emissions are decarbonized.
    2) the cumulative capital spending on physical assets for the net-zero transition between 2021 and 2050 would be about $275 trillion. This means that spending would need to rise from about $5.7 trillion today to an annual average of $9.2 trillion through 2050.
    3) spending would need to rise to almost 9 percent of GDP between 2026 and 2030 from about 7 percent today.
    4) transition would be felt unevenly among sectors, geographies, and communities.
    5) If poorly managed, it could increase energy prices, with implications for energy access and affordability, especially for lower-income households and regions.

    Under a 1.5ºC pathway, the number of solar panels installed globally per week would be approximately eight times higher than the number today. The rate of wind-turbine installations would need to increase fivefold. And natural resources, including raw materials such as copper, nickel, rare-earth metals, land, and water, would also
    need to be carefully managed to ensure sufficient availability.

    1. Mickey Taking
      March 27, 2024

      In other words ‘Net Zero is mission impossible, even if we are mugs enough to believe it!’
      It just ain’t gonna happen.

      1. glen cullen
        March 27, 2024

        I’d like world peace for Easter ….another pipe-dream of the UN

  16. Ed
    March 27, 2024

    It’s not just the money.
    Carbon dioxide is NOT the main driver of climate change.
    There is nothing unusual about the climate at the moment.
    Also no one in their right mind wants to live like a medieval peasant, especially when the rest of the world are not taking a blind bit of notice of this utter lunacy/ laughing their heads off at our stupidity.
    There is a catastrophe coming.

    1. Lifelogic
      March 27, 2024


    2. glen cullen
      March 27, 2024

      ”no one in their right mind wants to live like a medieval peasant”
      but a few would like to live like medieval kings, lords and elites

  17. Hugh C
    March 27, 2024

    Your previous book “Build Back Green” was reviewed on Amazon by Henry Haslam. He said:
    ” Redwood accepts, for the purpose of the book, that the science of climate change is settled. Many of his natural political supporters would disagree. Nevertheless, there is sufficient agreement among scientists, political parties, business and industry, and the financial markets – and among the nations of the world – to make this assumption understandable.”
    I have ordered your new book. Am I right in hoping that it will not accept that the elite should be allowed to impose this agenda on consumers globally, that the so called science is nothing more than an enormous techno con for opportunistic purposes, that controlling the climate is a ludicrous suggestion, that there is no emergency and that this wrong must be corrected before we go any further into this insanity.
    Or do you believe that battle is already lost and the only hope is to expose the vast wealth transfer that is planned together with the world’s lack of readiness in the hope that consumers will not comply?
    The need to minimise pollution is an admirable aim but the nudge unit project fear stuff about the death of the planet has to stop.
    We do not like being played, and worse, being betrayed by our politicians like Mrs May and her supporters who felt they had the right to sign Net Zero into law. No wonder we are looking elsewhere for leadership, rather desperately it has to be said.

    1. Guy+Liardet
      March 28, 2024

      Rather good, Hugh C! See me above!

  18. Bloke
    March 27, 2024

    Splendid. I’ve just ordered one for my daughter. The cover design is very well presented. I expect she’ll find the contents typically magnificent too.

  19. glen cullen
    March 27, 2024

    If you’re asking the taxpayer to foot the bill £275 trillion, than perhaps you should ask the people first, in a referendum (and not in a line of your manifesto) …net-zero as a concept policy will change our communities, traditions, our modes of travel, our health, our growth, our wealth, …well its going to change everything – apart from the environment & climate

    Reply That is the world figure

    1. glen cullen
      March 28, 2024

      The ‘taxpayers’ of the world

  20. glen cullen
    March 27, 2024

    The Tories have books, academic papers, hundreds of researchers, ministerial departments, parliamentary all party groups, lords debates, net-zero local government regulations, university projects, quangos, global networks & treaties ….Reform has a one page pamphlet that will repeal the climate change committee, the net-zero law and any associated treaty

  21. Wanderer
    March 28, 2024

    According to an article Linked in today’s Daily Sceptic (Dr. Jennifer Marohasy: There Is No Climate Crisis), it was Margaret Thatcher who was the first major politician to warn of CO2 leading to global warming. Apparently she used this as one of the arguments to move from coal to nuclear, and to help in her fight against the coal miners.

    Her government funded the Hadley Centre which she officially opened, and which produced the first IPCC report. We know where that has led us.

    Reply The main change which I helped her do was to privatise electricity. This led to the very successful dash for gas, replacing coal with gas power because it was cheaper, much more fuel efficient and cheaper. The industry did that, not a government requirement.

  22. Sakara Gold
    March 28, 2024

    The McKinsey report on net zero costs of $275 trillion is complete nonsense. The report was funded by Big Oil and two wealthy American Republicans and is contradicted by the UK Treasury’s own Net Zero Transition study. Which demonstrated large savings for British households by 2050. Why do you constantly ignore the large body of evidence that demonstrates large savings once the transition is complete?

    Reply. The study of global costs is not nonsense. What is your estimate of the cost of replacing all fossil fuel power generation, transport, heating and industrial process?

    1. Original Richard
      March 28, 2024

      SG : “Why do you constantly ignore the large body of evidence that demonstrates large savings once the transition is complete?”

      This is the Communist mantra that the ends always justifies the means. We saw how it works in the last century with Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

      Examine the figures :

      Gas generated electricity for decades before the green revolution adding green taxes and subsidies and before the Ukraine war was around £50/MWhr. Coal is half the price which is why China and India are building new coal power stations every week. Large nuclear is £50/MWhr as shown by the Finnish version of the Hinkley Point C EDF EPR which was not financed by the Chinese and RR SMRs are £50-£70/MWhr depending upon the financing method. Coal, gas and nuclear are all reliable and dispatchable (nuclear with some dditional costs)

      Compare this to the cost of fixed wind turbines at £100/MWhr and floating wind turbines at £242/MWhr which we will be paying from the next renewables auction (AR6) later this year. According to the Royal Society’s hydrogen based “Large-Scale Electricity Storage” report, which BTW assumes that wind capacity and the hydrogen round trip both double in efficiency by 2050), the price to achieve reliable, dispatchable electricity doubles to £200/MWht (fixed) and ££484/MWhr (floating).

      Then we have to add the £220bn cost to upgrade the National Grid to bring the power onshore and £ trillions to upgrade the local grids to all properties.

      The mantra that the transition to green energy will save money is utter nonsense and deliberately meant to be false.

    2. Sakara Gold
      March 28, 2024

      @Sir John – reply

      I take my information about the savings after the net zero transition from this 2022 Oxford University study

      The key points:-

      1) New study shows a fast transition to clean energy is cheaper than slow or no transition
      2) Idea that going green will be expensive is ‘just wrong’
      3) Green technology costs have fallen significantly over the last decade, and are likely to continue falling
      4) Achieving a net zero carbon energy system by around 2050 is possible and profitable

      Worth a read – if you care about our planet

      1. Berkshire Alan
        March 28, 2024

        Good grief a report on costings for a 2050 energy system and beyond ?
        No-one has got the last 5 years right, let alone in 25 years time and beyond, this is fantasy mathematics with so many possible variables, it is not worth the paper it is printed on.
        Good grief the Bank of England cannot even advise what the interest rates will be for next year, let alone 2050, given much of the money for all of these projects will be borrowed !!!

      2. KB
        March 28, 2024

        SG, these analyses fall over when you include the true cost of storing electricity.
        There will need to be storage on a massive scale, hundreds of times more than we have already.
        The so-called “levelized cost” is no such thing, because it does not include this cost of storage.
        When you add in the cost of massive storage, it becomes a very expensive proposition.

      3. Original Richard
        March 28, 2024

        SG : The report you quote was published in Sept 2022 and is consequently completely out of date. The paper is based upon the cost of fixed offshore wind at £45/MWhr (2023 prices) from auction round 4 (AR4) and falling. As it transpired, this price was so low that in 2023 the wind industry said they would stop developing at these prices and would not even bid for AR5 (2023). Consequently the 2024 auction (AR6) will see fixed offshore wind at £100/MWhr (2023 prices) and floating (which the labour Party believes is the answer to our lack of energy) at £242/MWhr (2023) prices. The price for fixed offshore wind is now double that of nuclear and hydrocarbon generated electricity and will double again if reliable, dispatchable electricity is required using hydrogen storage, according to the Royal Society’s Large-Scale Electricity Storage report.

        No interest in nuclear and definitely not worth reading especially if you care about the planet because renewables are a recipe for an energy disaster and will increase poverty to such an extent that humanity will not have the energy necessary to look after the planet.

  23. Donna
    March 28, 2024

    Well done Sir John.

    I refuse to use Amazon, so unless it is available via High St booksellers, I’m afraid I won’t be buying it.

    1. glen cullen
      March 28, 2024

      I’m surprised that under this government paperback books are still available, my council, bank and some retail shops, keep pressuring me to go ‘paperless’ (to save the planet …and not there costs)

  24. glen cullen
    March 28, 2024

    ”Welcome to EV for Schools, which provides free EV Chargers for Schools which are used by schools staff. Funding comes from grants provided through the UK Government’s Office for Zero Emission Vehicles (OZEV) topped up with money from EV for Schools’ ESG funder.”
    Why are we subsidising public employees to ‘free’ fuel while private sector have to pay ?

  25. Original Richard
    March 28, 2024

    The green (or rather red) revolution is not simply designed to give us expensive, chaotically intermittent energy and hence impoverishment and economic insecurity but also national insecurity.

    There is no security when there is no plan for grid-scale electricity storage. To continue to transition to renewable electricity without at the same time building up the necessary grid-scale storage is insane.

    There is no security in putting all our energy eggs in the one electrification basket. If the grid goes down, either through malicious acts, such as hacking, or even from natural causes, such as a solar flare, absolutely nothing will be working within a very short space of time.

    There is no security in relying upon China, a state described by our security services as “hostile”, for all our energy infrastructure (windmills, solar panels and now even steel) and the critical minerals for batteries, motors, generators and cabling (copper).

    There is no way our depleted military can defend thousands of miles of undersea cables connecting us to all the windmills in the North Sea and those connecting with mainland Europe or can protect the hundreds of thousands of square miles of windmills in the North Sea or vast solar panel estates on land. All easily destroyed by cheap, simple aerial drones or under water robotic drones. We saw how easily Nord Stream 2 was destroyed.

    Even natural causes can destroy renewables, storms at sea can destroy floating windmills and vast arrays of solar panels have already been completely destroyed in a hailstorm.

  26. dixie
    March 29, 2024

    Have you ever considered that the current one-way consumption model may not be sustainable?

  27. Ed M
    March 29, 2024

    Instead of having IDEOLOGICAL debates about climate change whether real or not and who are the good and bad guys regarding this, or not, government needs to focus on giving PRACTICAL help to entrepreneurs to cash in on the new green economy that could be worth zillions to the UK economy (unless we want to hand over all the opportunities to the Chinese, Americans, Germans – and others).


  28. Bryan Harris
    April 1, 2024

    The $275 trillion Green Revolution —

    I was expecting to see a breakdown of this $275 trillion, but all I saw was a statement – where did these numbers come from? We need more data if we are going to attack this huge waste.

    TBH I found the book sided with government far too often. It presented HMG as saviours when they are nothing like that! Too many instance of ‘sitting on the fence’, but to repeat the claim that the science is settled was an insult to science.

    If our society had been around for millions of years then perhaps we would know all there was to know about our environment, but we haven’t, and we don’t — there are more things we don’t know than what we do know. Our science is evolving, and as with so many things theories are all too often stated as fact when they can never be proven.

    There is no proven scientific link between the weather and Co2 in the atmosphere — All we have is political speculation.

    Reply McKinsey estimate of world cost

Comments are closed.