Study: $45 Trillion Investment Needed To Fight Global Warming

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Study: $45 Trillion Investment Needed To Fight Global Warming stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

JOSEPH COLEMAN | June 6, 2008 07:06 AM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It

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.

Story continues below
advertisement

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.

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  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
657
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 (6 pages total)

i am NOT going to pay a carbon tax

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:15 AM on 06/06/2008
- Ajita I'm a Fan of Ajita 90 fans permalink
photo

Lets just leave it to the future generations. Great idea!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 AM on 06/06/2008

Just like you are not paying the income tax? :-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:12 AM on 06/06/2008
- wadenelson1 I'm a Fan of wadenelson1 242 fans permalink
photo

Careful! They might through you in a nano-tube jail!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 AM on 06/06/2008
- Raymondf I'm a Fan of Raymondf 4 fans permalink

Money That we would spend on Global warming would be a waste of tax dollars because global warming is fake this ice melt happens every year and always re freezes You all are always talking about Republican scare tactics, well this is nothing but democratic scare tactics, there is no such thing as global warming. If science says there is such a thing stop all space exploration, besides the money we spend on unnessasary space travel could feed every homeless person, and build them homes to live in for the rest of their lives if they were 6 years old.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:12 AM on 06/06/2008
photo

You make a good point about space exploration, and I say that as someone who actually likes the idea of exploring space.

But how can you be so sure global warming is fake? Its one thing to have doubts, quite another to be absolutely sure.

If you accept that CFC's eating the ozone was real, and acid rain was real, why is it such a stretch to surmise that pumping megatons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere could cause a greenhouse effect?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:34 AM on 06/06/2008

It's so nice to know that Raymondf knows more than people who are doing climate science for a living. What else does Raymondf know more about? Brain surgery? Would anybody want to have him drill a hole in your skull? How about it Raymond? Feeling like a brain surgeon today? Or a rocket scientist?

Give me a brake...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:15 AM on 06/06/2008
photo

I swear these guys, went they can't answer a question directly, just retreat to their "Attack Al Gore personally" defensive position.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:16 PM on 06/06/2008
photo

http://www.climateaudit.org
http://www.globalwarminhoax.com

There. I'm giving you a "brake." Folks, put on your own "brakes" and read some science before you talk out of your butts. This "no one seriously disputes global warming" is pure BUNK. Manmade climate change has been debunked hundreds of times over. We have climate change for sure, but not for the reasons the Globalists would have you believe. It's the SUN, stupid.

The global warming scare is meant to rescue you from your hard earned money. If the global elitists are so convinced they NEED trillions to do what they want to do, then let them finance the operation themselves. Since they hoard 99% of the world's resources they can well afford it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:35 PM on 06/06/2008
- Raymondf I'm a Fan of Raymondf 4 fans permalink

There is no such thing as global warming. because in my town in West Virginia last winter was the coldest winter in 10 years.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:02 AM on 06/06/2008
- outnow I'm a Fan of outnow 186 fans permalink

Anecdotal evidence is worthless. I believe the NASA scientists and the other scientists. No credible scientists can refute the growing evidence. The Bush administration was ordered by a federal court to release a study that it had prepared in 2004. Last week the report was released. Even Bush admits that there is global warming. So does McCain. Only wackos on Fox News try to spread doubt. There is and has been a strong scientific consensus. Can you cite any reputable scientific evidence to the contrary? I am unaware of any peer-reviewed publications that cast doubt on climate change. I wish it were untrue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 AM on 06/06/2008
- wadenelson1 I'm a Fan of wadenelson1 242 fans permalink
photo

Well, you must be correct!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:14 AM on 06/06/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 27 fans permalink

That's it? That's all you've got, one cold winter?

Verses libraries, warehouses, and walk-in freezers full of global temperature records, multiple ice cores, multiple sediment cores, multiple tree-ring cores, multiple fossil pollen counts, multiple bore hole readings, declassified US Navy arctic ice thickness measurements, glacier melt and seismic measurements, permafrost off-gas measurements, soil off-gas measurements, ocean temperature, CO2, salinity, ph, current and sea-stand measurements, northward species migration records, longer growing season records, and a 150 years of laboratory physics experiments.

Gee, guess you must be right.

Not.

Look up the definitions of weather and climate. Note that they are not the same.

Then Start Here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
and here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:19 AM on 06/06/2008
- javaman I'm a Fan of javaman 5 fans permalink

in other words, forget it, useless "they" can find a profit in saving humanity, we are all dead.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 AM on 06/06/2008
- carlgt1 I'm a Fan of carlgt1 14 fans permalink

RepugliKKKans should be flocking to snap up those $45 trillion in "no-bid" contracts! :-)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:53 AM on 06/06/2008

and in 2050 we'll be happy and secure that we saved the skies, only to worry about what to do with this new mountain range of toxic nuclear waste.


I applaud their thinking, hoping there's another answer than that though

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:49 AM on 06/06/2008

For $45 Trillion, you could buy 1.5 billion $30,000 solar panel that would power every home in the world allowing us to stop using coal to create electricity and you could charge up your electric car for free. Oh, and you wouldn't need any nuclear power plants. Why don't they want to go with that plan? Oh that's right...then they wouldn't get to build billion dollar power plants and charge you for electricity and wouldn't be able to charge you for gas which would mean Exxon wouldn't get to make $10 billion every three months.

These false commodities need to come to an end. We suckers need to stop following the same games.

http://infogiant.wordpress.com/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 AM on 06/06/2008
- WmC I'm a Fan of WmC 16 fans permalink

Good point, Info. On a related note, if the U.S. had invested the $2T we're spending on Iraq to build $30,000 solar panel arrays, each household could now have one. We'd be using zero foreign oil.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 AM on 06/06/2008
photo

Not only that, but factor in economies of scale and the panels would get cheaper and cheaper over time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:50 AM on 06/06/2008
- EinChicago I'm a Fan of EinChicago 35 fans permalink

It wouldn't even cost that much. Even if teh US just gave a 50% tax credit ($15,000) for each person installing solar, the free market would pretty much push teh majority of people into installing them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:12 AM on 06/06/2008

Lets see...in 1850 co2 was at 280 parts per million and its now at 380 parts per million we are told due to oil driven machines. Now that is a increase of 100 parts per million. Lets do the math....100 divided by one million equals a change of .0001 in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Al Gore and his buddies want us to spend 45 trillion to save the world. He still gets to fly his jets, live in 20,000 square foot homes and dine on Chilian Sea Bass while we pay the bill. The inlightened progressive on the northwest coast want to stop bonfires on the beach to correct this .0001 % change that "WE" as humans have infected this earth with. WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE, but it is not from carbon emissions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:41 AM on 06/06/2008
photo

Math class is really tough...

380M / 280M == 36% increase. Its the relativity that matters, not absolute quantities.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:44 AM on 06/06/2008
- Marlyn I'm a Fan of Marlyn 82 fans permalink
photo

inlightened?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:42 AM on 06/06/2008
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 89 fans permalink

Yes, the situation is MUCH worse than this article states.

I advocate "280 by 2030". Or, thereabouts.

If we haven't reversed the trend - taking CO2 out of the atmosphere - within about 10 years, we're going to permanently change the planet such that it will never recover to be even the world we know today.

One thing articles like this fail to state is that there's a large time-lag - something like 20 years - between what we do now and the effect it has. With this kind of inertia, it will take a long time to halt things. The risk is that by the time what I've just written is obvious to everyone, it will be too late.

Do EVERYTHING you can NOW to reduce CO2 emissions (and methane).

And I Mean EVERYTHING.

P.S. I'm a scientist working in earth science for over 14 years...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:19 PM on 06/06/2008

We are in real trouble... because our children don't know how to calculate even simple stuff and don't understand science. You just proved it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:47 PM on 06/06/2008
- avraamjack I'm a Fan of avraamjack 21 fans permalink
photo

.
45 Trillion sounds extremely excessive.
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:33 AM on 06/06/2008
- HBeachbum I'm a Fan of HBeachbum 11 fans permalink

I bet the greenies are going to flip if the world builds 1,400 new nuclear plants. Also, over 1/2 of the investment will need to be made by developing countries ... I sure hope they can afford it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:28 AM on 06/06/2008
photo

Just give Al Gore a few more years. At the rate that he has been fleecing the sheep, he should have 45 Trillion or so in the bank.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:26 AM on 06/06/2008
- steamboat I'm a Fan of steamboat 45 fans permalink

he's gonna need that much to pay his home's extravagant electric bills and the fuel for all those private jet trips he takes (LOL)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:46 AM on 06/06/2008
photo

Empty rhetoric. If he accomplishes a rethinking of the way energy is produced, the net effect will cancel out whatever his trips produce by many orders of magnitude.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:54 AM on 06/06/2008
- ibsteve2u I'm a Fan of ibsteve2u 146 fans permalink
photo

lollll...the HardRight is going to love that number.

I can hear 'em now, shrilling their resistance upon the death bed that ye olde particulate pollution hastened them to...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:18 AM on 06/06/2008
- steamboat I'm a Fan of steamboat 45 fans permalink

Ok smart guy, do you really think the USA, which is far cleaner then China, India, and Russia, has the pay most of the $45 Trillion? Because thats what would happen. Do you realize how much $45 Trillion is? And I bet you want to still have national healthcare and lower gas prices, also. Right? Where's the money coming from?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:06 AM on 06/06/2008
photo

Read the article again. 45 Trillion is 1.1% of GWP.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 AM on 06/06/2008

Well, I sure am glad that we've cleared up any misconceptions that this global warming crisis isn't about money. Boy, we'd sure have a lot of explaining to do if we started throwing out astronomical numbers to convince the world that this impending crisis needed to be averted.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:46 AM on 06/06/2008

Of course it is about Money. That is always the Goal of the big Con.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:01 AM on 06/06/2008

Hot button headline. The article says this is 1.1% of GWP, which means a minor shift in the direction of spending which would be done anyway would accomplish this.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:43 AM on 06/06/2008

That's a very big number, but you know what? The world uses more than 80 million barrels of oil every day. At $120 a barrel, that's $3.5 trillion every year, just on oil alone.

Anc that oil keeps getting more expensive. Before long, we will fondly remember paying only $120 for oil, and only $4 for gasoline. Ultimately, we're going to save money by replacing it with greener energy sources.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:40 AM on 06/06/2008
- Sumocat I'm a Fan of Sumocat 34 fans permalink

Exactly. At current price and demand, $140 trillion will be spent on oil over the next forty years. That doesn't include processing or refining, and we know both price and demand will only increase. The amount spent just on oil will be easily ten times the $45 trillion price tag being touted for fighting global warming.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:20 AM on 06/06/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 (6 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect