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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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."
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.
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...
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?