Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#6,156
#6,156
Does anybody know how many tons there are? I can't wrap my mind around it with the author's useless metaphors. I need to understand in relative terms, not absolute.
 
#6,159
#6,159
Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
A report from America’s 3rd-largest bank asks why we’re not transitioning to a low-carbon economy
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.

“What is perhaps most surprising is that looking at the potential total spend on energy over the next quarter century, on an undiscounted basis the cost of following a low carbon route at $190.2 trillion is actually cheaper than our ‘Inaction’ scenario at $192 trillion. This, as we examine in this chapter, is due to the rapidly falling costs of renewables, which combined with lower fuel usage from energy efficiency investments actually result in significantly lower long term fuel bill. Yes, we have to invest more in the early years, but we potentially save later, not to mention the liabilities of climate change that we potentially avoid.”

This conclusion soundly refutes the main argument against climate action – that it’s too expensive, with some contrarians even having gone so far as to claim that cutting carbon pollution will create an economic catastrophe. To the contrary, the Citi report finds that these investments will save money, before even accounting for the tremendous savings from avoiding climate damage costs.

What about those avoided climate costs? …the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion. Even moderate (2.5°C) warming could cost $30 trillion less than a business-as-usual high global warming scenario.

As a result, the Citi report concludes that taking action to cut carbon pollution and slow global warming would result in a positive return on investment.

“By comparing the cost of mitigation to the avoided ‘liabilities’ of climate change, we can derive a simple ‘return on investment’. On a risk adjusted basis this implies a return of 1-4% at the low point in 2021, rising to between 3% and 10% by 2035.”

This isn’t a groundbreaking finding. Other reports have arrived at the same conclusion, and have found that a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be modestly beneficial for the economy (again, before accounting for the economic benefits of curbing global warming). This is why there’s a consensus among economists that we should be reducing carbon pollution.

The Citi report then asks the trillion-dollar question – if tackling global warming is such an economic no-brainer, what are we waiting for?

“With a limited differential in the total bill of Action vs Inaction (in fact a saving on an undiscounted basis), potentially enormous liabilities avoided and the simple fact that cleaner air must be preferable to pollution, a very strong “Why would you not?” argument regarding action on climate change begins to form … 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.”
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,161
#6,161
bamawriter said:
What can be reasonably and effectively done to reverse the trend? And I don't mean slow it down, but reverse it?
Click to expand...
Slowing the trend would be a good start. Right now the best thing we can do imo is curb emissions by improving energy efficiency and moving away from fossil fuels -- especially the dirtier fuels.

I don’t think anyone necessarily wants to reverse the warming trend; we just need to stop it. In any case, we’ll probably need to develop carbon capture and sequestration technology or some other type of geoengineering (which is in its infancy, to say the least). Unfortunately there is no better answer to your question. Besides cutting emissions, the only way to reverse the trend is CO2 removal. And that’s risky business…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,173
#6,173
Sandvol said:
Don't expect any relief anytime soon. One of nature's little jokes is the Western Mega Drought.
Click to expand...
Sandvol said:
Of course expect Bart to use your ignorance of this fact to full advantage.
Click to expand...
How is that figure even relevant? Your “current western drought” isn’t very current. Without even looking into it, the data appears to go through 2000 and was published in 2004. California’s extreme drought has only been since 2010…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#6,174
#6,174
bamawriter said:
While this is a wonderful idea in theory, in practice renewables are never as cheap as originally touted.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but addressing major environmental issues is never as expensive as originally touted, either. Anti-environmental groups have invoked the same economic doom-and-gloom rhetoric over cutting SO2 and CFC emissions to mitigate acid rain and ozone depletion, for example. I could dig up some great quotes… Anyway, those apocalypses never came to pass. Republicans invented market-based solutions with benefits far outweighing the costs. Even if Citi’s numbers aren’t precise, it should be clear that there are solutions that outweigh the costs.

We need to update our infrastructure and we’ll have to switch over to alternative energy sources sooner than later anyway. Why not do it in time (read: over the next few decades) to avert the worst impacts of irreversible climate change?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,175
#6,175
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top