iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Study: $45 Trillion Investment Needed To Fight Global Warming

Baku

JOSEPH COLEMAN   06/ 6/08 08:06 AM ET   AP

TOKYO — The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.

The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.

"Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.

A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.

Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans.

Environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and Russia backed the 50 percent target in a meeting in Japan last month and called for it to be officially endorsed at the G-8 summit in July.

The IEA report mapped out two main scenarios: one in which emissions are reduced to 2005 levels by 2050, and a second that would bring them to half of 2005 levels by mid-century.

The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy.

Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said.

That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy.

The second scenario also calls for an accelerated ramping up of development of so-called "carbon capture and storage" technology allowing coal-powered power plants to catch emissions and inject them underground.

The study said that an average of 35 coal-powered plants and 20 gas-powered power plants would have to be fitted with carbon capture and storage equipment each year between 2010 and 2050.

In addition, the world would have to construct 32 new nuclear power plants each year, and wind-power turbines would have to be increased by 17,000 units annually. Nations would have to achieve an eight-fold reduction in carbon intensity _ the amount of carbon needed to produce a unit of energy _ in the transport sector.

Such action would drastically reduce oil demand to 27 percent of 2005 demand. Failure to act would lead to a doubling of energy demand and a 130 percent increase in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, IEA officials said.

"This development is clearly not sustainable," said Dolf Gielen, an IEA energy analyst and leader for the project.

Gielen said most of the $45 trillion forecast investment _ about $27 trillion _ would be borne by developing countries, which will be responsible for two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Most of the money would be in the commercialization of energy technologies developed by governments and the private sector.

"If industry is convinced there will be policy for serious, deep CO2 emission cuts, then these investments will be made by the private sector," Gielen said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS

TOKYO — The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,...
TOKYO — The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,...
Filed by Katherine Thomson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 657
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
photo
Norge
Rolf K. Artist, worker of metal, writer of poems
03:06 PM on 06/09/2008
America has at present a 9 trillion public debt.
With a budget for the military at over 4oo billion per year, it just keeps getting more rediculous.

Rolf Krogsæther
08:37 AM on 06/09/2008
I'm putting this here because the thread where it appeared seems to be "closed."

Mouselion: "It seems as though you keep talking both sides of the argument. -- Live green, but the science that tells us we need to is incorrect.-- Combat hunger, but don't believe in the Malthiusian population principle (which states that population grows at faster rate than food production).
Heddy, you're kind of enigmatic."

No, I'm really not, mouselion. You set up a false dichotomy.
08:45 AM on 06/09/2008
Meaning, world poverty is not due to scarce resources. Hunger is due to a myriad of solvable problems that are NOT solved, ON PURPOSE. Our socio-economic Powers That Be use natural resources, including food, oil and gas, as weapons of reward, punishment and control.

We need to bypass this control if we wish to survive as a happy planet. That's why top-down, Command and Control solutions won't work: The Powers That BE don't want them to "work" for anyone but THEM. They just want control, i.e, the power to reward and punish.
03:55 PM on 06/09/2008
Although I am more conservative in my world-view than you, I have enjoyed your comments and they are food for thought. Apparently, some of these folks are either very young, exist in an incredibly loutish world, or both.

It's too bad that these threads become victim to childish trolls and are quickly abandoned.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
08:09 AM on 06/09/2008
Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean talks about some of the psychological characteristics of conservatives in Conservatives Without Consience. Besides thinking in a very compartmentalized fashion and thus likely able to hold two contrary ideas at the same time, they have a very high capacity for self-deception. This deception is so evident here in many of the posts of climate change deniers. They make any arguments that suits them. They think they can deny whole bodies of science because they want to. It is very strange. The world goes on without them. It must be due to some narcissistic component of our culture that people think if they do not want to believe something they do not have to. It is as if I did not believe in a round earth, I would fall off.
08:47 AM on 06/09/2008
There is big danger in falling into a false liberal/conservative dichotomy. There are great moral thinkers on both sides. Meanwhile, Evilism has polluted both political parties, not just "theirs."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
03:56 PM on 06/09/2008
No, you are wrong. There is a certain grab for power seen by conservatives not seen by Democrats. Democrats enjoy a good debate where I feel conservatives want to silence it. John Dean speaks of in his book and there was as article in Salon telling of all the obstacles the congressional Republicans put in the face of Democrats when even discussing a bill. They often even hid from Democrats when they were in the final stages of writing bills. In one funny example, Barney Frank was trying to find a committeee meeting that was sitting in a darkened room hiding from him. Read Dean's book. You are wrong. Of course, Democrats do make mistakes and are not perfect by any means. Many Republicans are decent. Their ideology is broken.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
dadw5boys
Disabled Vietnam Vet
09:13 PM on 06/08/2008
Would you really be a winner if your were the last man standing on a dead planet???????
09:07 AM on 06/08/2008
Reducing your greenhouse emissions as you call them by half, is simply too little too late. You are not going to like what is coming your way unless you implement change, huge change, on a global scale. To put a price tag on healing the only home you have to sustain you as a species is so utterly human and sad.
09:58 AM on 06/08/2008
If the environment were this far gone (and it's not), huge, draconian, top-down change costing us trillions, is also too little too late.

I believe in sustainable living, but the numbers are in: The sky really isn't falling. We DO have time to make a difference so that everyone around the world has the energy and food to live comfortably. This, IMHO is the honorable reason for living sustainably, not running around like chickens with our heads cut off due to some bogus, Club-of-Rome generated global warming "crisis."

Want a crisis? Let's feed the world first.
11:17 AM on 06/08/2008
I agree with a great deal of what you say and you say it very well. I also grow most of my own vegetables and hot-batch compost nearly everything I lay my hands on.

However, the issue has been completely politicized. It breaks down into one of two sides. The right urgently wants to dig a well, build a reactor, set up solar panels or wind towers or build a damn. The left does not. It's that simple.
The left has been going around and around for days on this blog rationalizing why we cannot exploit our own resources and why it is urgent that we convert to fairy dust as soon as possible or there will be a day of reckoning.

You can bet your ass there will be a day of reckoning. It's happening already. Other nations, China, Russia etc. are doing what they have to do and we will quickly be reduced to begging hat in hand while our economy slides into a hole and we cease to be a world financial power.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:51 PM on 06/08/2008
Would it be too much to ask you to base your "humble opinion" on science? Reading the technical summary in this link would be a good start:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
loki
cheap politicians for sale
10:41 PM on 06/07/2008
Well I think that gives you the answer. We just can not have our invasions in the middle east and save the environment. To bad, looks like the environment loses. We must have our priorities you know.. After all, just think of all the wonderful capitalist enterprises that will be born as the planet erodes away. We already are willing to pay for a bottle of water from the gas station and vending machines, so why not bottled air? There will be millions of products born out of environmental destruction in the future, and that is what Neo Con Corporate capitalist like to hear. That is why they are so much against saving the planet, because there is a lot of profit to be made doing the opposite. Who cares if in the end the planet dies, because the one who dies with the most money, will win!!
09:52 AM on 06/08/2008
Think of how much energy we could save if we brought the troops home.
09:59 AM on 06/08/2008
In other words, the Club of Rome and the Bilderbergers can't have their imperialism and eat it too.
09:23 PM on 06/07/2008
There are so many families that own more than one car, and this is often because the wives and mothers are in the paid labor force rather than working as stay at home homemakers. Think how much of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions we could have if more women stayed home to raise the children. This would also save the family money on food and daycare costs.

In many large, urban school districts children are bussed many miles from home to school. This is done to get greater racial and economic diversity in the schools, which is a good thing. But what is the cost to our environment?

Finally, what are urban planners doing to make our cities more affordable and inviting as places to live so that people don't have such long commutes to work each day?
12:10 AM on 06/08/2008
aaaaaaaaahhhhhhh..............................isn't that sweet. Conser vatives have embraced enviromentalism.

Cute.
09:54 AM on 06/08/2008
FIXED!

" . . . and this is often because the husbands and fathers are in the paid labor force rather than working as stay at home homemakers. Think how much of a reduction in greenhoue gas emissions we could have if more men stayed home to raise the children. this would also save the family money on food and daycare costs."

Brilliant, MuchMadness! I suggest you quit your job first.
08:53 PM on 06/07/2008
Waste to energy using plasma is far superior to nuclear. No radioactive waste and no CO2!
04:45 PM on 06/08/2008
Or we can all move to the sun where there is lots of energy. WTF are you talking about?
08:28 PM on 06/07/2008
The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker and her tag-team mousie, mouselion try to make the bottom-up-approach argument.

Okay, I'll play. The consumer has been raised in an environment of Cheap Energy and Excessive Consumption. An environment where consumption is a politically responsible act. God Bless A merica and Shop, Shop, Shop, and all that.

Now that environment is suddenly and harshly changed; folks are lost and angry; expectations are destroyed; and no one knows what to do. Who will educate the consumer in the new ways? Who will pay for the this education?

Aaahhh......the consumer has to figure it out for themselves. Or Business could educate them even as toothpaste commercials have educated us that the entire surface of the toothbrush needs to be covered with product; as opposed to your dentist recommending a pea-sized amount.

Yes, let the Market have at the sheep. Long live the Market and the pendulum swing. Don't worry, Market excess works its way out in the end.....

Unfortunately this is the end, and we do not have time to wait for the Market to adjust, nor do we have the stomach for washing the b l o o d off of our streets as the Market des troys the poor, old, sick and the weak.
08:50 PM on 06/07/2008
You underestimate the intelligence and spunk of the American people. Poor folk have ALWAYS been "green." I'm the child/grandchild of subsistence farmers. We shop secondhand. We recycle. We know compost makes better fertilizer than Scott.

All that wisdom, and they didn't even have a high school education. Cheezuz give Americans a little credit.
12:11 AM on 06/08/2008
Most Americas are city folk who don't know nuthing bout no farming
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
mouselion
09:03 AM on 06/08/2008
coyote, you misunderstand the premise:
Instead of letting large corporations whose only purpose is to create huge profits by turning you into a robot and telling you how to be "green" -- it needs to be the other way around: the consumer needs to be telling the large corporations how it's gotta be. There is a lot city folks can do -- in fact, if your job is in the inner city, that's where you should live. Can't stomach that? Find a job you can do near or at your home in the 'burbs or the country.

We don't need multi-billion dollar conglomerates and their lackeys in government telling us what we need. BTW: It's called democracy.
10:01 AM on 06/08/2008
Especially since large corporations "solutions" - via their lackeys in Congress - are bogus and don't really address the real issue. Their "solutions" exist to relieve you of your hard earned money and do NOTHING to improve the lot of the ordinary people in this world. On the contrary, their "solutions" result in two classes of people: Slaves and slave masters. Thanks but no thanks.
12:31 PM on 06/08/2008
Sorry to rain on your parade mouse, but the green revolution did not originate from the corporations, they are just reacting to the new market of people who want to do thir part. I'd muchg rather GE make tons of money on "green" than on war products anyways. Thus, the consumer is telling the corps what they want. We may need these corporations for their manufacturing capability for the new economy. Will they still make gobs of money and do stupid things? Yes, they can't help it, its all they know, but at least we are now setting their direction. Believe it or not there was a time when the corporations got tired of "the people" making sure they did the right thing in remeditaing pollution, so they just started doing it without whining. Then along came the great actor, Reagan.
I see lots of news ops from small entrepreneurs in this new economy and then jobs and then spreading it to the world. What we're spreading across the world right now is leadng us down the wrong path, which I know you agree.
07:58 PM on 06/07/2008
I've got better things to spend my money on. Tax yourself first before you come and try to take my wallet.

Gotta run, the outdoor BBQ is smokin'. The Venison is almost done!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
VivaZapata
08:11 PM on 06/07/2008
and your brain is completely fried, but that's what happens when you turn the heat all the way up to the smartass setting.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:27 PM on 06/07/2008
Frick global warming. We didn't do nothing all the years when we had money. Now we certainly don't have to do nothing when our pocketbook is shrinking. We all are driving less,and we are forced to buy cars with better gas milage.so we will save gas.
We didn't do it, when the time was ripe, now we are forced to do it. Frick global warming. I , myself have a small carbon print on this earth .I have been driving camrys for decades.
I recycle trash and drive a 30 miles per gallon car because I don't like to throw my money on the street. Now General motors is forced to close down their SUV Plant and one Pick up plant. and hopes to sell the Hummer deal. Serves them right. Those big CEO's were all to happy for Bush to invade Iraq because they thought we will have all kinds of oil, and they can build gas guzzlers as usual. Well they go fooled . Oh happy day.
07:21 PM on 06/07/2008
I have the BEST idea of all, and as a cost analysis by trade I can authoritatively state the ROI for this is really, really GOOD:

Snap your wallets shut.

Dang, that was easy.

If it's not green, local AND affordably priced, just don't buy it! Buy the greenest energy you can afford. Put the onus on the businessperson to make YOU happy. That's the way the free market is supposed to work, yes? It WILL reduce our carbon footprints to the levels we need them to be, and we'll all SAVE money instead of turning it over to the thieves in Congress.

What we have right now is NOT free market capitalism. We the People, lazy to the core, let the global corporatists (translation: fascists) take over our lives, shame on us. Here they are now, doing their d*mndest to harden the discourse before shoving their "solutions" down our throats: To have the little people foot their bills.

I say screw-em. They hoard 95% of the world's resources, let THEM pay for their own business infrastructure. Free market capitalism, if truly FREE, will bring the prices down as low as possible. That they aren't already is due to Congress' protection of the oligarchs.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
mouselion
07:26 PM on 06/07/2008
Yes, that is the bottom-up approach. Which is the correct way to mobilize the world-wide cultural energy change that needs to take place.
06:39 PM on 06/07/2008
It doesn't matter whether you spend $1 or $45 trillion, it won't change global temperatures.
07:12 PM on 06/07/2008
And your research papers are published where.......?
10:04 PM on 06/07/2008
The research papers of noted climatalogists, that don't have a political agenda. Plus a knowledge of climate history. Plus a knowledge of how computer models have never been right in predicting climate change.
06:06 PM on 06/07/2008
1 trillion dollars to replace the USA's electrical generation plants with solar and wind.

See my profile for the basics assumptions and calculations. They are rough approximate order of magnitude calculations. I will add and correct as needed.

The solar numbers are for 8$/AVERAGE watt. for best in the market solar power installations, ie about 2$/solar peak watt. 10% of the US energy needs could be satisfied with home roof tops alone. Another 10$ on commercial rooftops. Deserts can be reclaimed (sorry for people who are big desert lovers) by using solar collectors to reduce the ground sun to a point where more verities of crops can be grown without burning. All assuming 10% eff solar, where as 45% solar is just hitting the market and 20% is availble. Efficiency will increase and cost will decrease as usual for mass production.

http://nsl.caltech.edu/files/energy.ppt

(slightly out of date for the cost and efficiency of solar, but great overview of the total energy problem)

phased in over 10 years, the best existing power plants are used till they can be replaced with solar wind and any storage.

Note: 1 Trillion for the USA, about 4 Trillion for the world versus 45T to kludge old tech.
06:36 PM on 06/07/2008
Actually you may increase global warming by changing the desert landscape, and trapping more heat.
07:13 PM on 06/07/2008
And your r e s e a r c h papers are published where.......?
09:40 PM on 06/07/2008
the desert has a very high albedo. it is highly likely that solar power and farming would reduce it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
dadw5boys
Disabled Vietnam Vet
08:55 PM on 06/08/2008
In Texas they are trying to outbuild China with new Coal Fired Power Plants.

Imagine the polluation blowing east and north east.


Texas will turn the White House black with soot!
04:05 PM on 06/07/2008
The big hole in this article is that it does not even mention SOLAR. Go ahead search it. A couple hundred acres of solar in our deserts could supply all our needs. Solar in Dubai deserts could supply all Europe.

This article was heavily promoting nuclear, while IGNORING solar
04:49 PM on 06/07/2008
It doesn't mention MAGIC either.

Which is equally feasible.
07:13 PM on 06/07/2008
And your r e s e a r c h papers are p u b l i s h e d where.......?
02:25 PM on 06/07/2008
Sounds like a real bargain to heal this magnificent planet we live on, to heal our ONLY HOME we have FOR NOW..............!!!