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."

Comments

Nukes are safer than coal.

[Layzej]

Compare deaths from nukes vs deaths from coal. There is no comparison. For each person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die from coal. Nuclear is by far the safer option - http://www.the9billion.com/201...

Re:Nukes are safer than coal.

[PraiseBob]

You have to also balance the thousands of square miles of radioactive wasteland that currently exist, that won't be habitable for thousands of year without a jump in technology. And you have to consider the safety requirements of storing the waste securely, forever. And you have to consider what would happen in the event of a conventional or terrorist attack on a nuclear plant, unless you simply choose to believe that humans will stop going to war, and that a true "total war" will never happen in the future.

Yes, coal is dangerous, and has serious drawbacks, and definitely has a fixed number of deaths that can be attributed to it every year. But an enemy determined to stop the energy production of a country that has widespread nuclear energy could dwarf those numbers in a single strike. It isn't a black and white issue, and you can't simply assume a best case peacetime scenario in perpetuity.

Re:Nukes are safer than coal.

[PraiseBob]

Thriving?? The areas closest to Chernobyl have very little life. The forest is so dead, that the dead leaf litter from 30 years ago is still sitting on the ground, because there are no microbes to break the leaves down. There is no microbial life, and thus no plant life. The exclusion zone is much larger than the dead zone, and some of the area has low radiation and is indeed thriving. But there are still hundreds of square miles where the trees will likely still be standing in a thousand years, because they are too radioactive to decompose.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-nuclear energy, but when you look at the risk / reward, you have to throw in potentials for meltdown on the nuke side, and potentials for global warming on the coal side. You can't just compare historic figures of estimated annual deaths per year.

Re:Nukes are safer than coal.

[TapeCutter]

The same explosion of wildlife was seen in Korea's DMZ, a strip of land that cuts the peninsula in half and is chock full of landmines. It appears that the mere presence of urbanised humans is more detrimental to wildlife than a nuclear disaster. As a science based greenie I have to tentatively conclude that nuclear disasters are a very effective way to create large wilderness areas.

Disclaimer: I would welcome a properly managed nuke replacing the local coal plant (Hazelwood - said to be the dirtiest coal plant in the world), I say "well managed and modern" because even with the spectacular benefits nuclear disasters have to the natural environment, I'm still NOT ok with a nuclear disaster in MY backyard. ;)

Re:Citibank

[Anonymous Coward]

The other place to look is to insurance companies -- their entire livelihood is estimating the real risks, costs and benefits. Insurance companies all believe climate change is real and will have significant impacts.

Re:Nukes

[sjames]

That list is clearly bogus. For example it lists Onagawa. The plant did shut down a couple times due to earthquakes but those shutdowns went by the book and so can't properly be considered nuclear incidents at all.

Of the ones that don't represent things going exactly as expected, or non nuclear incidents at a nuclear plant (a fire in an administrative building, REALLY?), most are industrial accidents that released no radiation into the environment (because the safety systems worked as designed).

For all the FUD, TMI released less radiation than a typical coal plant does in normal operation.

Re:I should have thought of that

[PopeRatzo]

Surely you can trust a BANK. And of all the banks, Citibank is surely the most trustworthy. /SARCASM

So let's see..we'll make a list of the people who cannot be trusted when it comes to climate change:

1. Climate scientists
2. NASA
3. The Insurance Industry, which is already figuring climate change into their actuarial tables
4. The energy industry, which is already using climate change models in their strategic planning
5. The military, which is already using climate change models in their strategic planning
6. The financial industry

I guess all that's left for you to trust is Alex Jones, Breitbart, Fox News and Jesus. Good luck with that.

Re:I should have thought of that

[Layzej]

I guess all that's left for you to trust is Alex Jones, Breitbart, Fox News and Jesus. Good luck with that.

You've placed Jesus on the wrong list. He's on side with the economists/scientists/etc (so sayeth the pope): http://www.christianpost.com/n...