If climate alarmists want to keep, or regain, the public esteem they enjoyed when Michael Mann was young and litigious, they might want to think about which of their claims are increasingly causing people to snort with laughter, rage or both. For instance, from the shills at “Clean Prosperity”, the stale chestnut “Tackling climate change will boost economic growth”. To which the hoi polloi increasingly retort then why does the opposite keep happening? If the government really wants our trust, let them say we know it will hurt but the pain is necessary and in the end it will pay off. Then maybe we’ll trust them at least to tell us what they really think even if we don’t always trust what they really think. But if they keep repeating promises that have already failed, we’re going to suspect that they’re simple, they think we are, or both.

At CDN we think it’s important to focus on arguments. But especially given the drumbeat of accusations that climate “deniers” are in it for the money, we think it is worth observing from time to time that if we were for sale to the highest bidder we’d be alarmists. And that a great many of the people who are alarmists may be perfectly sincere but they are also certainly well-rewarded.

Thus we cannot help reflecting briefly on who is, again, paying the piper when we read:

“Ambitious climate action could increase global economic growth, not hinder it, says a new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).”

OK, it could. Unless it doesn’t. But how many of the well-paid people at the OECD and UNDP, with their glamorous lives including traveling on expense accounts, would keep their jobs for three weeks if instead they’d turned in a paper saying aggressive climate policy will crash the world’s economies and stifle economic growth?

You get the idea. The truth-value of this proposition, as philosophers might phrase it to justify their large state salaries, is entirely independent of the material interests of anyone involved in debating it pro or con. But if they’re obsessed with it we can give it a thought as well. (By the way we’ve never been able to figure out who funds Clean Prosperity. They say they don’t take money from governments or corporations, just foundations and individuals. But who funds the foundations?)

Still, what matters is who’s telling the truth not why. So going back to the unless-it-doesn’t retort, Clean Prosperity also informs us, if that’s the right word, that “Well-designed, accelerated climate action will result in global GDP 0.2% higher in 2040 than under current policies, the analysis found.” Um yeah. Well-designed compared to what we have now. Pity we don’t have such.

We don’t. We really don’t. Look at what’s happened in test cases like Britain, Germany or just New York State or California because of their climate policies. And at a certain point it gets hard to believe that, as with say Marxism, it’s a brilliant idea that for some unfair random reason just always gets bungled in practice.

Especially if it doesn’t really sound brilliant so much as trite and addled. And indeed the OECD version of this splendid this-time-for-sure scheme is appalling blather:

“As nations prepare their next round of climate commitments with their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the OECD and UNDP have joined forces under an initiative to demonstrate that investing in robust climate action fosters better growth for all. The initiative, carried out with support from the German Federal Foreign Office, will produce a report for release in May 2025 entitled ‘Investing in Climate for Growth and Development: The Case for Enhanced NDCs’, which aims to help countries design and implement NDCs that attract investment and place people at the heart of climate action.”

Nations and subnational jurisdictions have been at this business for over a quarter-century now, frequently with profound commitment, highly intelligent officeholders and public servants, and almost unlimited amounts of other people’s money. If “investing in robust climate action fosters better growth for all” the places that had already done it would be welcoming a long queue of visitors from poor countries desperate to copy the strategy and  improve their people’s prosperity and all-round well-being. You wouldn’t need some special contrived pilot demonstration or whatever it’s meant to be.

The OECD item gets worse fast. It starts, other than the windy preamble just quoted, by saying:

“Climate action has gained momentum over the past decade, driving real economic opportunities. However, current efforts are not keeping pace with rising risks. Our planet is dangerously close to crossing the 1.5˚C temperature guardrail, and current actions are not far or fast enough to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. Countries remain reluctant to scale up their climate actions and ambitions, fearing harm to their economies. This jeopardises the future of both our planet and its people.”

Cut paste snooze. But then, it immediately adds:

“Climate action is losing momentum, while accelerating it is needed to secure prosperity.”

So hang on. Is it gaining momentum, losing it or both? And what’s with:

“Mounting economic uncertainty, geopolitical tensions and rising public debts are shifting priorities and straining government budgets, particularly for climate.”

Governments facing economic uncertainty and rising public debts are surely more likely to lunge for what’s been shown to work and shelve speculative ventures. And you say this stuff is money in the bank. So why do they have to be persuaded? (We’d say it’s like a vaccine so effective people have to be threatened into taking it, but it might take us back to the question in the previous item about declining trust in science.)

They’re certainly not lining up:

“While new and more ambitious climate plans, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), were due by February 2025, only 19 countries had submitted updated NDCs by that date.”

Fools, apparently:

“Any slowdown in climate action risks delaying much-needed investments, weakening economic resilience and increasing climate damages. The cost of insufficient action is clear: it could threaten future development, economic stability and long-term prosperity.”

So finally they got to pony up or the planet gets it. But only after a bunch of blather about the exact opposite. Not the way to win friends or influence people, folks.

P.S. On a lighter note, pony up or poney up appears to originate from an old Latin prayer not the racetrack. But if you go to the latter, you’ll have to do the former.