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.
Yes, what is interesting about this is who wrote it-- this is one of the first detailed analyses of the methods and costs of dealing with global warming that I've seen that is not from an advocacy group, and is written by people who actually have a clue about real world economics.
Not true. "Nuke" is usually associated with food.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
So if we just call them a fundamental global cooling device we may get people to agree to a nuclear winter bombing?
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.
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
I didn't say they were nice people, just that there can be no accusations of slant from environmentalists here. It does tend to bring any claims that we can't afford to do anything about global warming into serious question.
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...
Yeah, at this rate all of the nuclear accident deaths (~40k up to ~300k depending on who you trust) will catch up with pollution deaths (7 million a year) in a few hundred years if we were to use nuclear power for everything.
In the short term, however, I am fairly confident that successfully slowing global warming will cost a pretty tidy penny itself
This has not been true so far. The biggest reductions in CO2 have come from:
1. Gas produced from hydraulic fracturing, replacing coal
2. Efficiency improvements, such as LED lighting, variable speed DC motors, etc.
These have SAVED money.
Of course, massive government subsidies for solar power and electric vehicles have cost a lot, but those haven't actually contributed much to CO2 reductions.
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?
That seems like a long list until you look at what is on that list. You are placing Atucha in the same category with Fukushima. At Atucha one worker was exposed above the annual limit. That is very different than a meltdown. Of that list there have been 3 releases of radioactivity. Three Mile Island of those was 35 years ago. Chernobyl was built 35 years ago. Technology changes and gets better over time.
I have to agree. It was purely an anomaly, what happened at Fukushima, Onagawa, Fleurus, Forsmark, Erwin, Sellafield, Atucha, Braidwood, Paks, Tokaimura, Yanangio, Ikitelli, Ishikawa, Tomsk, Cadarache, Vandellos, Greifswald, Chernobyl, Hamm-Uentrop, Tsuraga, Saint Laurent des Eaux, Three Mile Island, Jaslovské Bohunice, Lucens, Chapelcross, Monroe, Charlestown, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Chalk River, Vina, Kyshtym, Windscale Pile, and Chalk River.
You are having trouble, I see, distinguishing commercial nuclear energy events from cold war nuclear activity& related waste events, and also from distinguishing events with radiation releases from other events, and likely don't understand the relative impact of any of them.
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."
1952, Chalk River, Canada: A reactor shutoff rod failure, combined with several operator errors, led to a major power excursion of more than double the reactor's rated output at AECL's NRX reactor.
Many of the other "nuclear accidents" (OMG!! OMG!!!) you're trolling are equally exciting, and this one is rated at 5 on a scale of 1-7.
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.
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.
We are doing next to nothing. We are certainly not doing nearly what is necessary to prevent the problem. It's like bailing flood water with a drinking glass down the kitchen drain and saying you're "doing something" about the flood.
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.
Banks do financial analysis of just about everything. It helps them and their clients make smart financial decisions. Making money and avoiding bad investments are both important to banks and clients. Banks do best when the entire economy is doing well, and hence everyone else.
If you are worried about the radiation then you have another good reason to switch from coal to nuclear. "the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." - http://www.scientificamerican....
And then you need to consider the turnover time of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in centuries, not years. - http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...
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."
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...
Yeah, please do stop referrring to nuclear power as 'nukes' because it does sound like you're talking about weapons of mass destruction. And, I agree with you about extremist environmentalists. Of course they're against any kind of power generation, I think if they had their way we'd be back living a subsistence existence with no technology beyond muscle power, but then they don't want to give up their iPhones or Priuses now do they? Many of them talk the talk but can't walk the walk.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Plus it was so bad, he mentioned it twice. I remember the time I died of radiation sickness after visiting the barren wasteland that is Chalk River
Wouldn't we also need to include all deaths from explosives throughout the centuries when calculating the deaths from fossil fuels (i.e. gunpowder and TNT)?
Sounds good to me. It is along the lines of including the suicides when talking about gun violence.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Executive orders are rescinded as easily as they are passed. The next sane president will open it up.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No "to nuke" is a verb which is mostly associated with microwaving food (at least here in the states). This is not the same as "nukes", a noun which typically refers to nuclear weapons.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Plain old economics is what is holding back nukes, not "envirowackos", if "envirowackos" had that sort of political power then why are we still building new coal plants? The fact that changing to renewables for electricity generation is both good for the environment and good for the economy has been recognised by sane capitalists since the "Stern Report" (2005 IIRC). The insane ones still believe AGW is a UN plot to strip mine their wallet and their "freedoms".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It's hard to measure but statistically uranium miners have a high death rate from cancer. There has also been some radioactive slurry pond leaks down in Navajo territory that also boosted cancer rates quite a bit. All in all, mining uranium may be more dangerous then mining coal, at least per pound. Of course the saving grace is that much less needs to be mined so over all it is much safer but it is totally misleading to claim it is 100% safe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism