Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Citi Report: Slowing Global Warming Could Save Tens of Trillions of Dollars

Posted by timothy on from the baselines-and-assumptions dept.

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."

6 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. Nukes are safer than coal. by Layzej · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:Nukes are safer than coal. by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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. ;)

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  2. Re:Citibank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  3. Re:Nukes by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:I should have thought of that by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. Re:I should have thought of that by Layzej · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...