There have been terrible, costly, murderous political movements in history. The "Great Leap Forward" in Communist China during the 1950s and 60s cost the lives of at least 15 million people and perhaps as many as 100 million. National Socialism not only murdered 11 million Jews and other "undesirables," but also led to the deaths of 21 million soldiers and another 50 million civilians in World War II.
One political movement hasn't been as costly in terms of people killed, although the death toll could be in the millions. The "climate change industrial complex" has cost the human inhabitants of this planet over $16 trillion and hasn't saved a single life.
As far back as 2009, climate skeptic Bjorn Lomborg warned of this "climate change industrial complex."
"We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test," Lomborg wrote in the Wall Street Journal. "We must ask whether a 'climate-industrial complex' is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain."
That's exactly what happened. Individuals who have built massive fortunes through renewable energy, electric vehicles (EVs), and sustainability have grown significantly. As of early 2026, there are approximately 100 to 150 billionaires worldwide whose primary wealth is tied to the "green" sector.
Skewing market forces, destroying entire industries, damaging the economic prospects of billions of people in the Third World, and the sheer, tragic waste of capital are all the result of belief in the unproven theory that the Earth is going to warm up so precipitously that it threatens life on the planet.
Former Trump economic advisor Stephen Moore, writing in the New York Sun, believes the "climate change industrial complex" is the "Greatest Financial Scandal in World History."
The war on safe and abundant fossil fuels has cost countless lives in poor countries and made those countries poorer by blocking affordable energy.
Since the global warming crusade started some 30 years ago, the temperature of the planet has not been altered by one-tenth of a degree — as even the alarmists will admit.
In other words, $16 trillion has been spent — a lot of people got very, very rich off the government largesse — but there is not a penny of measurable payoff.
Yet it’s much worse than that. In economics there is a concept called opportunity cost: What could we have done with $16 trillion to make the world better off?
Think of the possibilities. Nations could have made drinking water safe, saving millions of people who die from malaria. Or they could bring electricity to the billion people who don't have it.
"The benefits of speeding up the race for the cure for cancer could have added tens of millions of additional years of life at an economic value in the tens of trillions of dollars," writes Moore.
Instead, Al Gore gives speeches for $250,000 a pop. As of 2026, estimates of his net worth exceed $300 million. This wealth was largely built after his 2000 presidential bid through "savvy investments in tech and media," according to CBS News.
The British High Court famously identified nine scientific "errors" or exaggerations in his Academy Award-winning film An Inconvenient Truth and ruled that it must be shown in schools with accompanying guidance notes. There are at least another half dozen statements in that film that are labeled as "partially true."
Gore is only the most visible manifestation of climate change greed, but there's no doubt that $16 trillion can be spread out over a vast constituency. Corporations, advocacy groups, and NGOs have all had their hands out and profited handsomely. Poorer nations have been demanding cash from rich nations to help them with "climate mitigation" and are getting pretty nasty about it.
This hasn't only been the biggest financial scandal in history. It's also the largest grift ever. Developing nations are demanding at least $1.3 trillion every year to tackle climate change, covering damages from extreme weather and aiding the transition away from fossil fuels. Guilt-ridden rich nations offered "only" $300 billion. The poorer nations turned up their nose, calling $300 billion a year "insufficient."
The good news is that even in Europe, there's a recognition that climate change hysteria has gone too far. And with the U.S. pulling out of the Paris Accords and dismantling the "Green revolution" piece by piece, perhaps we've reached peak madness on climate change.
