Category: Climate Crisis

  • Small Investment, Big Reward: Oil Giants Dumped $19 Million Into Trump’s Inaugural Fund

    Spread the love

    Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

    U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance acknowledge the crowd after Trump’s second inauguration in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda on January 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Kenny Holston/Pool/Getty Images)

    “Every month that Donald Trump has been in power, we’ve seen a raft of anti-climate measures come out which are music to the fossil fuel industry’s ears,” said one investigator.

    Oil, gas, and coal companies and individuals linked to the climate-wrecking fossil fuel industry contributed more than $19 million to U.S. President Donald Trump’s second inaugural fund, an analysis by a leading international environmental and human rights group revealed Wednesday.

    Scouring itemized U.S Federal Election Commission data, Global Witness identified 47 individual donations to the Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee between November 2024 and January 2025 totaling $19,151,933. Using an artificial intelligence tool developed by Global Witness to identify corporate lobbyists, the group’s researchers were able to automatically determine each donor’s ties to the fossil fuel industry.

    SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

    Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

    Global Witness said the $19.15 million figure “is likely an underestimate, as we did not count donations from diversified investors and businesses who couldn’t be said to primarily represent the fossil fuel industry,” and individuals with common names that couldn’t be identified were not included in the final report.

    According to the analysis:

    The list of donors includes individuals who were given ambassadorships or key positions in the Trump Cabinet.

    For example, billionaire Warren Stephens donated $4 million on December 2, 2024, the same day Trump nominated him to be U.S. ambassador to the U.K. Stephens has extensive links to the oil and gas industry but also invests in other sectors and wasn’t included in our calculations of fossil fuel industry donors.

    Trump also nominated Melinda Hildebrand—who donated $500,000 to the president’s inaugural fund—to be U.S. ambassador to Costa Rica.

    Hildebrand is the vice president of Hilcorp Ventures, which claims to be of the largest privately owned oil and gas producers in the U.S. Her husband, founder and chairman of Hilcorp, donated another $500,000.

    Among fossil fuel corporations, Chevron was by far the largest contributor to Trump’s inauguration fund, giving $2 million. Other companies including ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Occidental Petroleum each donated $1 million.

    Overall, Big Oil gave $445 million to Trump and other Republican candidates during the 2024 election cycle.

    Trump, who ran on a “drill, baby, drill” energy policy, has signed a series of executive orders aimed at boosting fossil fuel production, including by declaring a fake “energy emergency” in a push to fast-track permit approvals. He also tapped former fossil fuel executives to head the Department of Energy and Interior Department, which have pursued a policy of opening up more public lands and waters for fossil fuel development.

    At the same time, the Trump administration dropped out of the Paris climate agreement for the second time and moved to roll back the modest climate progress achieved under former President Joe Biden.

    “It’s no surprise the oil and gas industry handed millions to Donald Trump for his inauguration, and they seem to have reaped a huge return on their investment,” Global Witness senior data investigator Nicu Calcea said in a statement Wednesday.

    “Every month that Donald Trump has been in power, we’ve seen a raft of anti-climate measures come out which are music to the fossil fuel industry’s ears,” Calcea continued. “From plans to steamroll through dirty new coal plants, to the attempted quashing of ‘polluter pays’ laws that would hold oil giants accountable, it’s clear where his political priorities lie.”

    “While Trump sides with his friends in oil and gas, we must keep up the fight for a fair, green future—that means pushing for wind and solar where we live, backing polluters pay bills, and resisting the development of oil, gas and coal projects across the country,” he added.

    Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

    Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
    Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
    Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
    Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
    Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
    Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
  • COP30 president: Transition from fossil fuels can start without climate talks

    Spread the love

    https://www.climatechangenews.com/2025/07/09/cop30-president-transition-from-fossil-fuels-can-start-without-climate-talks

    COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago speaks to journalists at a press conference to launch an open letter on work towards the COP30 climate summit in Belem, Brazil. (Photo: Rafa Neddermeyer/ COP30 Amazônia/PR)

    In an exclusive interview, André Corrêa do Lago says negotiators can work out rules or a timeline for the energy transition, but it’s up to countries to act on what they agreed

    When it comes to the most important thing to curb climate change – moving away from planet-heating fossil fuels – governments have done enough negotiating, and their focus now should be on putting what they already agreed into practice, Brazil’s COP30 president told Climate Home News.

    That does not require repeating language in new UN texts or even consensus among countries about how to transition from coal, oil and gas, although they could choose to design a roadmap for that energy shift at this year’s climate summit in the Amazon, André Aranha Corrêa do Lago said in an exclusive interview. 

    …

    Brazil’s environment minister Marina Silva at a press conference in London. (Photo: Credit: Isabela Castilho / COP30 presidency)

    The COP30 president emphasised that while this is up to governments, “we can’t keep the world waiting for negotiations to move forward” before acting to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems. 

    “It’s not true that it depends on that. There’s already enough approval from countries. Individual countries can do it because implementation isn’t by consensus. Implementation is that each country does what it thinks it can do,” he explained.

    …

    https://www.climatechangenews.com/2025/07/09/cop30-president-transition-from-fossil-fuels-can-start-without-climate-talks

  • Chart: Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ blows US emissions goal by 7bn tonnes

    Spread the love

    Original article by Josh Gabbatiss and Ho Woo Nam republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license.

    President Donald Trump at a rally at the Iowa State Fairgrounds. Credit: Alex Brandon / Alamy Stock Photo

    President Donald Trump’s dismantling of climate policy means the US will add an extra 7bn tonnes of emissions to the atmosphere from now until 2030, compared to meeting its former climate pledge under the Paris Agreement.

    Since winning office last November, he has issued a series of executive orders and is poised to sign his “big beautiful bill” that effectively terminates Biden-era climate policies.

    Carbon Brief’s analysis of modelling from the Princeton University REPEAT Project shows that this means US emissions are now set to drop to just 3% below current levels by 2030 – effectively flatlining – rather than falling 40% as required to hit the now-defunct target.

    This would leave the US around 2bn tonnes short of its greenhouse-gas emissions target for that year, adding emissions equivalent to around 4% of the current global total each year

    To put this in context, it is roughly the annual output of Indonesia, the world’s sixth-largest emitter.

    Trump is already withdrawing his nation from its international climate obligations under the Paris Agreement.

    The passage of the new Republican-backed “megabill” means that US climate targets pursued by Trump’s predecessor now appear firmly out of reach. 

    7bn tonnes

    Trump is due to sign the so-called “big beautiful bill” into law after it was approved by the Republican-controlled US Congress on 3 July.

    This “megabill” removes virtually all of the tax credits for renewable energy, electric vehicles and clean manufacturing that were at the core of Biden’s landmark Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

    (Ahead of the US presidential election last year, Carbon Brief estimated that, by reversing the IRA and other key policies, a Trump administration would add 4bn tonnes of emissions by 2030, compared to a continued Biden administration.)

    Since his return to the White House, Trump has moved to strip away his predecessor’s climate policies, including via a series of executive actions. This includes targeting vehicle fuel-efficiency standards and power sector emissions standards.

    The passage of the new bill means US solar and wind power expansion will likely slow down, as will sales of electric vehicles and energy efficiency improvements. The combined effect of these policy rollbacks can be seen in the chart below, based on modelling by the REPEAT Project.

    Carbon Brief has compared the impact of Trump’s policies, including the megabill, to a pathway on which the US meets its former target, under the Paris Agreement, to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52% from 2005 levels by 2030. 

    Trump's 'big beautiful bill' blows US emissions goal by 7bn tonnes
    Source: REPEAT Project, US nationally determined contribution.

    The cumulative gap between this pathway and the Trump administration’s trajectory amounts to 7bn tonnes of emissions over the next five years.

    Based on the most recent central estimate of the “social cost of carbon” in 2030 from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), published under the Biden administration, those 7bn tonnes of extra emissions would cause global climate damages worth more than $1.6tn.

    Under this new set of US policies, emissions are only expected to be 20% lower than 2005 levels by 2030, rather than 50-52%, meaning the nation would be 2bn tonnes short of its goal.

    This amounts to just a 3% drop from 2024 levels by 2030, meaning emissions are effectively flatlining.

    Renewables down, prices up

    Among the hundreds of provisions in the new Republican-backed bill are several key rollbacks that are expected to affect US emissions.

    Under the IRA, wind and solar projects could receive tax credits up to 2034. Following the Republican bill, most projects would need to start construction within the next year to qualify.

    Without federal support, the pipeline of new renewable-energy projects is expected to contract.

    The REPEAT analysts estimate that cumulative new solar capacity additions will drop by 29 gigawatts (GW) by 2030 and around 140GW by 2035. For wind power, the decrease is set to be 43GW by 2030 and 160GW by 2035.

    Some renewable projects will likely be built without support, but developers will need to contend with other Trump administration policies, such as stopping federal windfarm approvals.

    The lost renewable capacity is unlikely to be entirely replaced by fossil fuels, due to a multi-year backlog in the construction of gas-fired power plants. 

    Tax credits for nuclear and geothermal power have been retained until 2036 in the bill. While these projects generate clean electricity, they can also take a long time to build. 

    Other key policies in the new bill include the removal of tax credits worth up to $7,500 to purchase electric vehicles, which could result in tens of millions fewer such cars and vans being sold. Ending tax credits for low-carbon manufacturing is also expected to undo progress in building clean technologies, such as solar panels and electric cars, domestically.

    Beyond its effect on US emissions, various early analyses have suggested the Republican-backed bill is likely to increase energy prices and lead to job losses.

    REPEAT estimates household energy costs are likely to be $165 higher in 2030 and more than $280 higher by 2035, following the passing of the bill.

    Some of this increase can be attributed to fewer electric vehicles on the road, leading to higher petrol and diesel consumption and prices. Slowing construction of solar and wind projects as power demand increases will also likely affect the cost of electricity.

    Without tax credits to boost the construction of new generation capacity, residential electricity prices are set to increase by 7% – or $110 – by 2026, for the average US customer, according to analysis conducted for trade body the Clean Energy Buyers Association.

    In the state of Wyoming, the same analysis found that electricity prices may rise by as much as 30% over the next year. Other firmly Republican states, such as North Carolina and Tennessee, are also expected to see near-term price rises in the double digits.

    Methodology

    Modelling of the impact of the Trump administration’s “big beautiful bill” is from the REPEAT Project, a joint initiative of the Princeton University ZERO Lab and Evolved Energy Research. 

    The project has assessed the emissions impact of the executive actions that the Trump administration has already taken to unwind Biden-era policies, as well as the bill itself. 

    Carbon Brief compared this trajectory out to 2030 with a straight-line pathway towards the official US climate target for 2030. This is set out in the US’ nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement. It is worth noting that the Trump administration is withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement.

    Original article by Josh Gabbatiss and Ho Woo Nam republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license.

    Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
    Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
    Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
    Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
    Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes' concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country's economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
    Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
  • Rachel Reeves Promised Oil Industry ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Over Windfall Tax in Private Meeting

    Spread the love

    Original article by Sam Bright republished from DeSmog.

    Chancellor Rachel Reeves speaks at the Semafor World Economy Summit in Washington D.C in April 2025. Credit: Credit: Kirsty O’Connor / Treasury (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

    The government has been accused of making a “secret exchange deal” with fossil fuel firms to compensate for the tax hike.

    Chancellor Rachel Reeves told a fossil fuel giant that the industry would receive a “quid pro quo” in return for higher taxes on its windfall profits, DeSmog can reveal.

    In a meeting with the Norwegian state energy company Equinor on 27 August last year, Reeves suggested that the government’s carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) subsidies were a payoff for oil firms being hit with a higher tax rate.

    Minutes of the meeting obtained by DeSmog state that Equinor CEO Anders Opedal raised concerns over the Energy Profits Levy – also known as the “windfall tax” – and “its impact on the value” of Equinor’s UK portfolio.

    In response, Reeves said that raising the windfall tax from 35 percent to 38 percent was a “manifesto commitment”, but stated that “Equinor should recognise the quid pro quo – the funds raised enable government investment in CCUS etc.”.

    This article was co-published with The Guardian.

    CCUS is the controversial practice of trapping the emissions produced by fossil fuel plants before they enter the atmosphere.

    The technology is accused of being a favourite climate “solution” of the fossil fuel industry since it allows for the continued extraction of oil and gas. Experts have also suggested that the technology is not economically viable at scale.

    The Labour government announced in October that it would provide £22 billion in subsidies to CCUS projects over 25 years following a surge in lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, as revealed by DeSmog.

    Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer MP claimed that Reeves and the Labour government had been “caught out making promises in a secret exchange deal which goes against the interests of the British people”.

    Denyer added: “In public they claim to be taxing fossil fuel giants more fairly by raising the windfall tax, but behind closed doors they are giving back with dodgy deals to allow the fossil fuel corporates to continue with business as usual under the guise of CCUS – an expensive distraction and largely unproven technology.”

    An Equinor spokesperson said: “Government regularly meets with companies like Equinor. This is standard and necessary practice. As with any official meeting, minutes were taken of the conversation between the chancellor and Equinor CEO as a public record of what was said and readily available via a Freedom of Information request.”

    Equinor is one of the principal firms investing in the UK’s CCUS sector. In December, the government signed deals with Equinor, BP, and TotalEnergies to develop carbon capture facilities in Teesside. This will involve the development of the Net Zero Teesside Power plant, which will be 25 percent owned by Equinor and aims to be the world’s first gas-fired power station featuring CCUS.

    Earlier this year, following a DeSmog investigation, Equinor retracted the claim that it stores 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually at its flagship carbon capture project in the North Sea. Equinor has not captured 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year at the site since 2001, and only captured a tenth of that figure in 2023.

    The firm made an $28.7 billion (£21.2 billion) post-tax profit in 2022 after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered higher oil and gas prices – a figure that stood at $8.8 billion (£6.6 billion) in 2024.

    Tessa Khan, executive director of the campaign group Uplift, said: “Oil companies, like Equinor, have held sway over successive UK governments, for years shaping policies to benefit their bottom line and slowing down climate action. This Labour government must stand up to them and put our needs – for affordable clean energy and a safe climate that we can pass on to our children – ahead of their insatiable need to profit.”

    The House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee (PAC) – which scrutinises government spending decisions – released a report in February describing the UK’s CCUS subsidies as “risky”.

    The report noted that the government has downgraded its ambitions for CCUS storage, scrapping its previous commitment of storing 20 to 30 million tonnes annually by 2030. It also highlighted that the UK’s new CCUS projects don’t allow the government to share any potential profits or for local consumers to benefit from lower energy bills.

    The committee also reported that producing liquid natural gas, which will be used in the UK’s CCUS projects, leaks more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than previously thought.

    “This could undermine the rationale for pursuing certain schemes,” the report said.

    After being sued by environmental consultant Andrew Boswell over the Net Zero Teesside scheme, the previous Conservative government admitted that it had not taken into account the plant’s full potential emissions, which Boswell estimated could reach more than 20.3 million tonnes during its lifetime.

    In summer 2024, a judge rejected Boswell’s case, which argued that officials did not fully explore the environmental impacts of the scheme before approving it. The government also won the appeal in May.

    Boswell, who leads the Scrap Carbon Capture campaign, called Reeves’ Equinor meeting “an outrageous spectacle”.

    “She begs Norway’s oil colossus to tax its huge profits, and then gifts it with far more in return – many billions over decades for climate-wrecking CCUS.”

    Prime Minister Keir Starmer visits Equinor’s Northern Lights CCUS plant with Norway Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre in Bergen in December 2024. Credit: Credit: Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

    Equinor and Shell have formed a joint venture to become the UK’s largest North Sea fossil fuel producer. In November, the government admitted that it had unlawfully approved the development of the country’s largest untapped oilfield, Rosebank, which is operated by Equinor, by not taking into account the climate effects of burning the oil and gas extracted from the field. Equinor intends to re-apply for approval to develop the project.

    The Labour government has been steadfast in its support for the UK achieving net zero emissions by 2050, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer stating that “home grown clean energy” is “in the DNA” of his administration.

    The Climate Change Committee stated in its 2025 appraisal of the government’s net zero policies that the UK needs to scale up its CCUS capacity to 73 million tonnes a-year by 2050 to help meet its climate commitments.

    “Investment in carbon capture and storage is a gamble on unproven technology,” said Lily-Rose Ellis, campaigner at Greenpeace UK. “All it does is give oil and gas giants carte blanche to continue causing planet destroying emissions in the hopes that one day they might be able to capture the carbon and store it for all of eternity. Public money should be spent on renewables which guarantee to lower emissions, bring bills down, and boost the economy with new jobs.”

    “Equinor has been a reliable energy partner to the UK for over 40 years,” a company spokesperson said, “providing a stable supply of oil and gas, developing the UK’s offshore wind industry, and pioneering solutions to decarbonise the UK economy, including carbon capture and storage.

    “Using our experience of decarbonising energy production in Norway, including safely storing carbon emissions under the North Sea for over 25 years, we are supporting the UK to develop its own home grown energy transition.”

    A government spokesperson said: “We are delivering first of a kind carbon capture projects in the UK, supporting thousands of jobs across the country, reigniting industrial heartlands and tackling the climate crisis.

    “Money raised from changes to the Energy Profits Levy made at the Autumn Budget last year support the transition to clean energy, enhance energy security and independence, provide sustainable jobs for the future, and help protect electricity bills against future price shocks”.

    This article was co-published with The Guardian.

    Original article by Sam Bright republished from DeSmog.

  • OBR: Net-zero is much cheaper than thought for UK – and unchecked global warming far more costly

    Spread the love

    Original article by Simon Evans republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license.

    Aerial view of a solar farm, north west England, UK. Credit: Paul White – UK Industries / Alamy Stock Photo

    Reaching net-zero will be much cheaper for the UK government than previously expected – and the economic damages of unmitigated climate change far more severe.

    These are two key conclusions from the latest report on risks to the government finances from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which includes a chapter on climate change.

    The new OBR report shows very clearly that the cost of cutting emissions to net-zero is significantly smaller than the economic damages of failing to act.

    Here are four key charts from the OBR report.

    Climate damages could reach 8% of GDP by 2070s

    The UK could take an 8% hit to its economy by the early 2070s, if the world warms by 3C this century, according to the new OBR report.

    (This aspect of the OBR report has been picked up in a Reuters headline: “Global 3C warming would hurt UK economy much more than previously predicted, OBR says.”)

    Its latest estimate (blue line) of the impact of “climate-related damages” by the 2070s is three percentage points (60%) higher than thought just last year (yellow), as shown in the figure below.

    Chart 1.9: Impact on GDP and government borrowing of climate change damage
    Left: Impact of climate damages on UK GDP, if global warming reaches 3C by the end of the century. Right: Impact on government borrowing. Blue lines show the latest estimates whereas yellow lines are from last year’s report. Credit: OBR

    The OBR says that the increase in its estimate of climate damages is due to using a “more comprehensive and up-to-date analysis”.

    (The world is currently on track to warm by only slightly less than 3C this century.)

    Unchecked damages could double hit to borrowing

    The impact of climate damages on government borrowing would be nearly twice as high by the 2070s, if global warming goes unchecked and reaches 3C, according to the OBR report.

    This is shown in the figure below, which compares additional government borrowing each year, as a share of GDP, if warming is limited to less than 2C this century (left) or if it climbs to 3C (right).

    Chart 4.6: Additional public sector net borrowing from climate damage costs
    Additional government borrowing each year due to climate damages, as a share of GDP, %, if warming is limited to less than 2C this century (left) or 3C (right). Credit: OBR.

    The OBR explains that the largest impact of climate damages on government borrowing is “lower productivity and employment and, therefore, lower tax receipts”.

    Cost of net-zero halved

    When it comes to cutting UK emissions, the OBR says the government will only need to invest just over half as much on reaching net-zero, compared with what it expected four years earlier.

    This is shown in the figure below, with the latest 2025 estimate (right) showing a cumulative government investment of 6% of GDP across the 25 years to 2050, down from 11% (left).

    (Note that the large majority of “lost government receipts”, shown in yellow in the figure below, are due to fuel duty evaporating as drivers shift to electric vehicles. As the OBR notes, the government could choose to recoup these losses via other types of motoring taxes.)

    Chart 4.12: Change in cumulative real spending and receipts impacts by 2050-51
    Cumulative change in government lost receipts (yellow) and extra investment (green), as a share of GDP, %. Left: OBR’s 2021 report. Right: Latest 2025 report. Credit: OBR.

    The OBR takes its estimates of the costs and benefits of cutting emissions to net-zero from the government’s Climate Change Committee (CCC). The CCC recently issued significantly lower estimates for net-zero investment costs, due to more rapidly falling clean-technology costs.

    Acknowledging this shift, the OBR says the latest CCC estimates on the cost of reaching net-zero are “significantly lower” than earlier figures.

    It notes that the net cost to the economy of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 is now put at £116bn over 25 years, some £204bn lower than previously expected.

    In very rough terms, this figure – which excludes health co-benefits due to cutting emissions and avoided climate damages – is equivalent to less than £70 per person per year.

    Cost of action far lower than cost of inaction

    Taken together, the OBR findings show more clearly than ever before that the cost of taking action to tackle climate change would be far lower than the cost of unchecked warming.

    For the first time, its latest report combines the estimated cost of cutting emissions with the expected damages due to rising temperatures in a single figure, shown below.

    The comparison illustrates that climate damages (blue bars in the chart) are set to impose severe costs on the UK public finances, even if warming is limited to less than 2C this century (left).

    The OBR also shows how the cost of government investment in cutting emissions (yellow) is both temporary and relatively small in comparison to climate damages.

    Moreover, it highlights how unchecked warming of 3C this century (right) would impose far higher climate damages on the UK government’s finances than if global temperatures are kept in check.

    Specifically, global action to limit warming to 2C instead of 3C could prevent more than 1 percentage point of climate damages being added to annual government borrowing by the 2070s.

    In contrast, the combined estimated cost to government of action to cut emissions never exceeds 0.6 percentage points – even if lost receipts due to fuel duty are not replaced (green).

    CHart 4.13: Annual additional primary borrowing from the combined costs of damage and transition, relative to the 2024 FRS central long-term projection
    Annual additional government borrowing as a result of action to cut emissions (yellow, green) and from climate damages (blue, purple). Left: 2C of warming this century. Right: 3C. Credit: OBR.

    Beyond these new numbers, the OBR acknowledges that it still does not include the cost of adapting to climate change, or the impact this could have on reducing damages.

    Nor does it consider the potential for accelerated transitions towards clean energy, technological advances that make this shift cheaper or the risk of tipping points, which could cause “large and irreversible changes” to the global climate.

    Original article by Simon Evans republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license.

    Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
    Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
    Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
    Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
    Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
    Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.