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."
1. It is almost certainly written with a corporate agenda.
2. It is attempting to predict the future of technological innovation (e.g. renewable power will get cheaper and more efficient). That's fine and good, but we don't know the future.
3. The elephant in the room with any discussion about reducing carbon emissions has always been, and remains that the rising third world carbon emitters aren't going to change their ways, and therefore the official reason for reducing emissions (to curb climate change) is pretty much ineffectual. Any realistic estimate of how much Western carbon capping will affect global climate change in the face of China and India's continued/increased emissions ends up with a puny number, and really a rounding error. If the problem isn't getting solved, then does any of this even matter?
Most renewable energy sources are never going to be competitive with coal in the third world, no matter how much tree-planting first world enviro-warriors dupe themselves into the belief that they're "making a difference". It's likely to stay that way until somebody makes fusion power work, or some other similarly dramatic innovation.
We've saved even more money by having wildly inaccurate and dire predictions that didn't pan out. Think of all the money we saved by not having increased hurricanes, $12.99 gallon milk, $9/gallon gas, and New York City flooding... The real miracle would be to find a circa 2000 prediction of global warming that was even moderately accurate.