Slashdot Mirror
Citi Report: Slowing Global Warming Could Save Tens of Trillions of Dollars
Layzej writes with news carried by The Guardian about a report published by the Global Perspectives & Solutions division of Citibank (America's third-largest bank) examining the costs and benefits of a low-carbon future. The report examined two hypothetical futures: one "business as usual," and the other (the "Action" scenario) which includes an aggressive move to reduce energy use and carbon emission.
From the article: "One of the most interesting findings in the report is that the investment costs for the two scenarios are almost identical. In fact, because of savings due to reduced fuel costs and increased energy efficiency, the Action scenario is actually a bit cheaper than the Inaction scenario. Coupled with the fact the total spend is similar under both action and inaction, yet the potential liabilities of inaction are enormous, it is hard to argue against a path of action."
But there will be winners and losers, says the report: "The biggest loser stands to be the coal industry, where we estimate cumulative spend under our Action scenario could be $11.6 trillion less than in our Inaction scenario over the next quarter century, with renewables, wind and nuclear (as well as energy efficiency) the main beneficiaries."
Are the only "solution" and Envirowackos won't go for them.
>> the Action scenario is actually a bit cheaper than the Inaction scenario
Did you write that with a straight face? In any "strawman" study like this (with only two possible courses), the "take my specific action" will ALWAYS be shown to be the smarter/cheaper/faster/better option.
(Now, back to TFA article - I want to see what this one's about.)
Carbon emissions only happen because they're cost effective.
And they're only cost effective because of heavy cost externalization. (Pollution is a cost you force on everyone else.) And market distortion (Regulatory capture, trade protection, mineral exploitation of poor countries with corrupt governments, etc)
If we develop cleaner tech now, the prices will come down in the future and become competitive. The market will solve the emission problem at that point. We can help the process by ending market distortion that favors pollution energy sources. (Subsidizing clean energy is an imperfect, but politically easy way to do this too)
Just look at solar. Solar's been developing for a long time now and it's now clear that it will be cheaper than most other energy sources in the near future. For many it's already a viable alternative. Once we build a smart, decentralized, elastic power grid with local storage you'll see shiny blue fields and rotating blades everywhere. It's inevitable. Gas powered cars will follow in short order.
For some unknown reason, seeing a BANK funded study makes me not trust it.
Some things need to be said...
But THIS time their predictions are accurate, and they really mean it. Sure, the goalposts keep moving, but the important thing is their prediction is apocalyptic, so you HAVE to listen and take action. The actual accuracy of the predictions isn't important.
Oh wait, you are interested in actually dealing with reality instead of an agenda?
Look at Citi's motivation. They are trying to plan their investments for the future. They have come to the conclusion that investing in renewables, wind, nuclear, energy efficiency, etc is both a better investment and also avoids the potential major consequences of continuing to invest in coal. Where do you find the flaw in their research?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Oh, you mean versus all that pristine land that coal mines leave behind? Or if you step slightly to the side and consider the tar sands, the utterly blighted landscape left by that mining operation. The tailings ponds leak into the ground water, poisoning everything. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima have things living in their exclusion zones. There aren't any exclusion zones for the tar sands, and nothing can live there. If birds land in the tailings ponds--and they do--they pretty much immediately die.
The tar sands are considered a SAFE operation, one that's operating within the bounds of the law. This is what happens when there are NO accidents. With operations like these, who needs meltdowns?