Citi Report: Slowing Global Warming Could Save Tens of Trillions of Dollars 248
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."
Sad Reality (Score:2)
I agree with the statement that we probably should do something before it becomes an unfixable problem assuming it hasn't already become an unfixable problem. It's like maintenance for your car. You can get lazy and wait till something breaks but at that point it will probably cost you a great deal more and be far more inconvenient than if you had kept up with maintenance. The reality or problem is that people are rarely ever pro-active and on top of that people who make a living on the "stay the course
Re: (Score:2)
For example, as wonderful as solar is, its lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are on par with natural gas (see Figure 66 page 64 of report). But it is so hard for many to believe that they just deny it. Denial won't get us to where we need to be.
https://ir.citi.com/hsq32Jl1m4... [citi.com]
Here's the thing about disasters. (Score:2)
There's no such thing as a disaster that's a disaster for everyone. War is a disaster for people in general, but it's great for munitions makers. Hurricanes are no good for the people who live through them, but very good for companies that sell them building materials.
Every catastrophe is a windfall for someone. If the public saves tens of trillions of dollars by slowing down climate change then that's tens of billions of dollars of revenue somebody won't be making.
Re: (Score:2)
Avoidable disasters are not zero-sum games. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
A win-win game is not the only kind of non-zero-sum game there is. Suppose I set up a game in which the amount I win is 1/10 of what everyone else loses. I win $100; everyone else loses $1000. If I add up the net gains in the whole game, what we have as a net loss of $900 for all players. It's not fair; it's not reasonable for the community of players to favor such rules, but nonetheless I'm still up $100.
Broken windows may not be a net good thing for the community as a whole, but it certainly is a good
Citibank Business and FInancial Acumen (Score:2)
So Citibank made billions in bad loans, almost went under, took massive bailouts and then awarded their executives huge bonuses.
What does this say about their knowledge of financial matters?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently it says they know what they're doing cause all that stuff happened and their current market cap is $151B. ...not that we should be happy about it of course.
Nuclear Fusion (Score:2)
If we really took this problem seriously, we'd be pushing hard on nuclear fusion research. I suspect we could have had fusion plants up and running before 2000 if there had been research funding. Now it's 2015 and we've got lots of fusion research projects limping along on shoestring budgets, plus ITER which is paralyzed by bureaucracy and international politics. (Remember the 20 years they wasted arguing over where to build it?)
If we managed the Apollo Program the way we've managed ITER, people today wo
Something about a bank funded study.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Missing the point (Score:2)
Not the right mentality. (Score:2)
"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."
Wrong.
The main beneficiaries here are humans, as we wise up and discover more and better ways of creating energy that do not rely upon resources that are depleting and will eventually no longer exist for our use.
I grow tired of seeing only a capitalistic viewpoint as we look to define winners and losers in this ever-growing problem that the human race faces. Buggy-whip manufacturers are not viewed as "losers" today. Their technology was merely replaced, just as coal and oil will be one day.
But... Think of West Virginia (Score:2)
Where will all those miners go to get their tumors?
Javon's Paradox (Score:2)
Re:"Action" cheaper than "Inaction" is a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Citibank (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Citigroup tops the list of bailout recipients
http://www.cnbc.com/id/4209955... [cnbc.com]
How much will it cost this time around ?
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly... Not like they correctly planned for the future in the past. Forecasting is more fantasy than fact.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd believe insurance over a banker (Score:2)
Insurance is more believable than Citibank - which relies on loans and investment in capital growth areas for income. (of which Coal and other established utilities are not)
Insurance has it's own flaws. Many of the WTF provisions in the building code (wired, networked smoke alarms without requiring a central management point or cutoff, residential sprinkler systems, head heights, deck railing requirements, etc.) have been written by the insurance industry to reduce their risk. Still, on a long term, overvie
Re:Citibank (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Here is a survey of economists who also generally do not have a stake in a transition to the new energy economy: There is a strong consensus among the top economic experts that, in fact, climate change represents a real danger to important sectors of the U.S. and global economies. Moreover, most believe that the significant benefits from curbing greenhouse gas emissions would justify the costs of action. - http://resources.ofdan.ca/docs... [ofdan.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
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
What's detailed about it? They assume various estimates about costs are correct and use a low discount rate.
Re:Citibank (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at Citi's motivation. They are trying to plan their investments for the future. They have come to the conclusion that investing in renewables, wind, nuclear, energy efficiency, etc is both a better investment and also avoids the potential major consequences of continuing to invest in coal. Where do you find the flaw in their research?
Re: (Score:2)
nahh it couldn't come from a bunch of people sucking at the government teat while they find new and innovative ways to rob you ?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not as though the financial industry could make staggering amounts of money from 'Carbon Credits'.
No, sir. They're doing this for the good of the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly never said they were in it for the good of the planet. I'm pretty sure they'd pave the last square foot of rain forest if there was money in it.
Re: (Score:2)
The largest estimate for the potential size of the carbon credits market is $30 billion.
The derivatives market is worth $1.2 QUADRILLION.
The financial industry is not going to make "staggering" amounts from carbon credits when the entire carbon credit market isn't even a rounding error compared to what they're making in derivatives. You want "staggering" I would suggest looking at derivatives, whi
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not as though the financial industry could make staggering amounts of money from 'Carbon Credits'.
No, sir. They're doing this for the good of the planet.
Wow, someone getting rich and our environment stabilizing sure sounds like lose lose. Weirdly, its the exact opposite of that. Someone getting rich off saving the environment our society is accustomed to is probably the only chance our society has.
Re:"Action" cheaper than "Inaction" is a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:"Action" cheaper than "Inaction" is a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Energy from burning strawmen would at least be carbon neutral.
Re: (Score:2)
And what other possibilities are there? If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and over a century of physics states it is, then the only two options would appear to be end the use of fossil fuels, or continue to use them.
Re: (Score:2)
In any "strawman" study like this (with only two possible courses), the "take my specific action" will ALWAYS be shown to be the smarter/cheaper/faster/better option.
They simply present two options and, in detail, show the differences and the underlying basis. They never claim there are no other options and in fact if you actually looked through the report you'd see that others are presented in various ways. You can't do a report like this and have 10 options listed. It provides a benchmark reference, nothing more. You can decide to dismiss it, and dismiss everything in it completely by labeling it a strawman if that is the excuse you need. That makes it easy to stick w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
easy to argue, to show a path of action is stupid (Score:2)
Also, this is prima facie false (althpugh liberals often rely on it being true):
> it is hard to argue against a path of action
Not at all. Here ya go:
Sticking a pencil in your eye is a path of action.
Sticking a pencil in your eye is obviously stupid.
Therefore, the path of action is stupid.
The question isn't "should we get out of bed and do something today?" The question is "WHAT should we do today? Should we go to work, rob our neighbor's house, plant a tree?" Another important question that is often
Risk vs. Reward (Score:2)
In the inaction scenario the technology and costs are fairly certain and predictable. But there is a possibility that they may be avoidable if warming turns out to be less than predicted.
In the action scenario there is a risk that all the abatement expenditure was fruitless, either because it didn't work, was too late to be of use, or because it just wasn't needed in the first place. Even so, the commitment will have been made and adaptation and cost avoidance impossible - money down the drain.
So without a
Re: (Score:2)
Geoengineering, for example.
Geoengineering?
we can't even clean all of the garbage out of the ocean that is accumulating there.
You going to engineer the Amazon back into health? Replace the ice that is no longer recovering? Put back the methane that is escaping as ice recedes and ocean water warms? De-acidify the ocean? While continuing to burn coal and petroleum and pour pesticides into the earth and ocean thus acidifying the ocean and destroying the fertility of the earth?
Re:Nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not true. "Nuke" is usually associated with food.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Nukes (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"That word is usually associated with bombing and deaths."
The flat-earth lobby will associate any other term with bombing and death also. Because years ago it decided to come out against the whole upper region of the periodic table, any use of nuclear against AGW will have to take place over their dead bodies. Time to warm up the legal steamroller now.
Re: (Score:2)
Still no resolution to the waste issue.
Now start the "things we could do in theory" discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nukes (Score:4, Funny)
Executive orders are rescinded as easily as they are passed. The next sane president will open it up.
Re:Nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nukes (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to all the radiation being released every day by coal plants?
Nukes are safer than coal. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nukes are safer than coal. (Score:5, Informative)
There are plenty of ways to cause mass destruction. Chemicals are far more scary. (look up Bhopal). Fear can't drive us to be impractical and ignore proven solutions in hopes of a miracle breakthrough.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nukes are safer than coal. (Score:5, Informative)
You can consider human life as an element, or you can ignore that element if you want. There are many factors, cost, practicality, certainty, reliability, etc. If you consider human health overall, nuclear power has been one of the most advantageous sources of energy ever devices, second probably to hydro. If you consider CO2 contribution/offset, then it is right on top as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Nukes are safer than coal. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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.
As opposed to destroying entire mountains [mjsb.org]? Those mountains will never exist again.
Re: (Score:3)
Which "thousands of square miles of radioactive wasteland" would that be?
That certainly doesn't describe the area around Chernobyl, which is basically forest like it's always been, with a few people plus a large amount of the usual wildlife.
Fukushima? Nope, no radioactive wasteland there either.
Closest I can come to finding a "radioactive wasteland" on Earth today are coal-ash heaps outside coal plants.
Re:Nukes are safer than coal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you mean versus all that pristine land that coal mines leave behind? Or if you step slightly to the side and consider the tar sands, the utterly blighted landscape left by that mining operation. The tailings ponds leak into the ground water, poisoning everything. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima have things living in their exclusion zones. There aren't any exclusion zones for the tar sands, and nothing can live there. If birds land in the tailings ponds--and they do--they pretty much immediately die.
The tar sands are considered a SAFE operation, one that's operating within the bounds of the law. This is what happens when there are NO accidents. With operations like these, who needs meltdowns?
Re: (Score:3)
Switch from coal to nuclear to reduce radiatiion (Score:5, Informative)
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.... [scientificamerican.com]
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... [www.ipcc.ch]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure where you got your numbers, but you appear to be comparing total nuclear deaths to rate of pollution deaths. What is the rate of nuclear deaths?
Re: (Score:2)
0/year.
Seriously, the only way to get a number of deaths from nuclear is to include mining accidents (falling rock...not radioactive fallout) and all the deaths from the bombs dropped.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Nukes (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds good to me. It is along the lines of including the suicides when talking about gun violence.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Nukes (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Nukes (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Nukes (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Nukes (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Windscale was not a nuclear powerplant. Trying to claim it as a nuclear power accident is deeply disingenuous. TMI which is the third worst leaked almost no radiation and is completely stable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 distor
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. West Texas doesn't subsidize solar, and there are mammoth solar arrays being installed there. [wsj.com] Note that this is the Wall Street Journal, not a particularly liberal paper.
Re: (Score:2)
The article still mentions federal subsidies as well as local subsidies (10 year tax abatements). An article linked in the comments or you linked article even talks about how the projects have slowed since the State stopped handing out subsidies.
Re: (Score:2)
Fission via cookie cutter design. We need to make modern reactors, something you build in a factory, something that has a standard interface, and general has a design life.
Companies are trying to get this going, things like sealed reactors that are expected to got back and get refurbished, scrapped or whatever in 30 years.
Right now we keep building one off's as to get the political support you need to hire a pile of construction workers for years to build everything. Problem is they cost massive amounts to
Re:I'm sure they are right.... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They reason EV's haven't contributed much to CO2 reductions is because there isn't enough of them. They represent but the a tiny fraction of just 1 percent of the total number of vehicles out there.
Between that and the fact that much of the main power grid, from which electric vehicles ultimately derive their power, is still often using less than environmentally friendly approaches to power generation, it is hardly surprising that EV usage has not contributed very much to CO2 reduction. The fact that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those subsidies will pay off in the coming decades when those things become cheap enough for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Those subsidies will pay off in the coming decades when those things become cheap enough for everyone.
It is not clear if this is true. Some economists believe the subsidies are counter-productive, because they have encouraged the mass production of inferior technologies, and drained resources away from research into technologies that actually make sense. Subsidies for R&D are probably a good idea. Subsidies for mass production, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Those subsidies will pay off in the coming decades when those things become cheap enough for everyone.
Unless, of course, that doesn't happen. Just because you assert something will happen doesn't mean it will.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
lol that's the saddest thing I've read all day. In a hilarious way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep you're off the standard left-right conspiracy axis and off into imaginary space.
Re: (Score:2)
And for the "climate change" nazis,
Hi, Nazi here.
overdue for a mini ice age phenomena.
The word "phenomena" is plural. You should say "a ... phenomenon" to make it singular. Thank you, that is all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait, you are interested in actually dealing with reality instead of an agenda?
It was FICTION, sheesh! (Score:2)
Is Slashdot modding up posts that judge science by fictional TV shows?
No goalposts were set since that show wasn't making actual scientific predictions. It was a pseudo-reality TV disaster show. People were even encouraged to send in their own footage imagining future disasters caused by global warming. It was called "Earth 2100" because the depictions of the year 2015 were just setups for the disasters that would happen 100 years later in the show.
Here's a quote from the producer:
"this program was devel [go.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That fictional disaster show wasn't accurate? Shocking!
Re:I should have thought of that (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, 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... [christianpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You actually thing global warming is a hoax?
If so, there's no point in trying to reason with you since you've managed to shut out mountains of evidence. All that's left is to point and laugh at the silly people.