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."
Yes, I'm sure there's no chance the study of financial impact could be true given that it was written by a bunch of tree hugging granola munchers like Citibank. Wait, WHAT?
If you'd stop calling them "nukes", it would help. That word is usually associated with bombing and deaths. And anyone who's pro-environment and anti-nuclear doesn't make any sense. Just because some nuclear power plants are badly designed and/or badly run doesn't mean the concept itself is flawed.
As opposed to all the radiation being released every day by coal plants?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
A bank? First you have to ask yourself, "Why is a bank writing a paper on global warming?" The answer is, of course, to make money.
Do you remember after Obama got elected, everyone was talking about "Carbon Credits" and "carbon trading?" New York bankers were giddy with delight at the prospect of a new market that they could tap into. The mayor wrote editorials saying how great it would be for the city, because of all the extra tax revenue.
Never trust a banker. You'll know they're serious about AGW when they buy farmland in Alaska and install coal burners in all their branches.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
When banks do financial analysis for clients, they give the report to their clients. They don't give the report to a newspaper.
When they give reports to newspapers, it's to influence public opinion (which is the same reason every company gives reports to newspapers, it's not only banks who are doing that).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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?