Scientists don't make money from people buying EVs or green energies.
Correct, they don't. Scientists make their money off taxpayers, and politicians who provide those funds are behind global warming (or climate change if you desire).
Scientists can work for corporations, universities, research firms, Fossil Fuel companies, think tanks, etc.
Universities get federal funding along with grants from private organizations.
Now, who has the most to lose as we go green. What do the scientists they fund say?
"Follow the money!", you say?
Let's do just that.
I noted that “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”
...
How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.
That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.
Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.
For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.
The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.
unlike the 4.65 trillion dollar fossil fuel market.
The rerally funny part with you deniers is that going green can save you money.
Buying higher MPG vehicles save you monet
Installing geothermal HVAC saves you money.
EVs can save you money.
Ignoring AGW & you will pay big time for the results like higher food costs, addressing coastline higher sea levels, more storm damage from storm surges, addressing more droughts, redoing HVAC systems to address higher temperatures . increasing our electrical grid, etc ertc etc.
So your plan is more expensive.