Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Power Politics

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • 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

    • Sad reality is that we can't overcome our preconceptions and decide on the right solutions based on practicality.

      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]
  • 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.

      • by hey! ( 33014 )

        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

  • 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?

    • 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.

  • 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

  • by Needs2BeSaid ( 4062029 ) on Tuesday September 01, 2015 @01:51PM (#50438011) Homepage
    For some unknown reason, seeing a BANK funded study makes me not trust it.
    • Why not? The bank has lots of money to invest. It wants to know where the smartest place to invest it is. So it commissions a study to figure that out. Assuming they follow through with their investment, they're putting their money where their mouth is. Which is more than I can say for both sides of the climate debate (one side wants to control how other people's money is spent, the other side doesn't want to pay for damage caused by their own choices).
  • A goodly chunk of the One Percent _want_ AGW-fueled (emphasis on FUEL) disasters, as it will 'thin the herd' of the underclass (starting with foreigners but eventually even the domestic useful idiots), all the while turning a hefty profit. It's just "Make Room! Make Room!" with a sound ROI.
  • "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.

  • Where will all those miners go to get their tumors?

  • I do not have time to fully read the report, but doubt they address Javon's Paradox. From Wikipedia: "In economics, the Jevons paradox (sometimes Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing demand.[1] The Jevons paradox is perhaps the most widely known paradox in ecological economics.[2] However, governments and environmental

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Working...