Climate Deal Likely to Bear Big Price Tag

[TomCADem]

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — If negotiators reach an accord at the climate talks in Copenhagen it will entail profound shifts in energy production, dislocations in how and where people live, sweeping changes in agriculture and forestry and the creation of complex new markets in global warming pollution credits.

So what is all this going to cost?

The short answer is trillions of dollars over the next few decades. It is a significant sum but a relatively small fraction of the world’s total economic output. In energy infrastructure alone, the transformational ambitions that delegates to the United Nations climate change conference are expected to set in the coming days will cost more than $10 trillion in additional investment from 2010 to 2030, according to a new estimate from the International Energy Agency.

As scary as that number sounds, the agency said that the costs would ramp up relatively slowly and be largely offset by economic benefits in new jobs, improved lives, more secure energy supplies and a reduced danger of climate catastrophe. Most of the investment will come from private rather than public funds, the agency contends.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09cost.html?hp

[tinrobot]

1. Think of it as a work project.

I'd much rather spend a few trillion putting people to work inventing and installing a 21st Century energy infrastructure than fighting a war for 20th Century oil.

[karynnj]

14. Nicely said

and the air and water will be cleaner and the fish likely will have less mercury (if they can remove whatever is already in the water).

[lapfog_1]

2. Not to mention that it will SAVE MONEY

Over a 20 year period, you are ALREADY spending a significant amount on new energy infrastructure. More oil or coal or natural gas fired plants, or more nuclear plants. Those cost hundreds of billions as well, and that's just for the replacement of the plants we have, as more developing countries expand their energy needs, they will want what we've had for the last 60 or 70 years. They might as well "leap frog" right into the new energy technologies. After all that's what they are doing with communications.

$10 trillion over 20 years is an average of only $500B a year. Compared to a lot of other things, this isn't all that much. Cheap really. And the operating costs of renewable energy systems is lots cheaper than fossil fuel based systems.

[karynnj]

13. True, They need a better title, as by their 4th paragraph it is really contradicted

The 4th paragraph says:
As scary as that number sounds, the agency said that the costs would ramp up relatively slowly and be largely offset by economic benefits in new jobs, improved lives, more secure energy supplies and a reduced danger of climate catastrophe. Most of the investment will come from private rather than public funds, the agency contends.

Still they ignore that the costs of doing nothing are likely to be exorbitant.

[DFW]

3. If anyone thinks THAT'S expensive, try this:

Get a quote from Beekins Movers for a move from whever it is you live to a planet that would support
human life, and that we haven't fucked up yet. Multiply that by six billion people, and THEN tell me
about expensive.

[dysfunctional press]

4. this planet will do quite nicely for the rest of my natural life.

and that is ultimately my main only concern.

[NecklyTyler]

6. Exactly - It will cost trillions for civilization to survive

The alternative to spending trillions to survive is to die

[DissedByBush]

12. Logical fallacy of false dichotomy

There are more than two choices. Another is to adapt.

And this still assumes that the chicken littles are correct in thinking any change would be enough to even challenge our survival.

And we know the chicken littles are always right. Right?

Pick almost any dire prediction from Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" for reference.

[Andronex]

5. "complex new markets in global warming pollution credits"

“People often ask about the costs,” said Kevin Parker, the global head of Deutsche Bank Asset Management, who tracks climate policy for the bank. “But the figures people tend to cite don’t take into account conservation and efficiency measures that are easily available. And they don’t look at the cost of inaction, which is the extinction of the human race. Period.”

I now fell safer knowing that global financial interests want to save humanity from itself, brings a tear to my eye now that I am aware that bankers like Kevin are sacrificing their own interests for the greater good. He is right, this is about "the extinction of the human race period", no more discussion and crazy talk from wackos, please! let these selfless professionals do their work and let's all be grateful we are being taken care of. We are just little people what do we know about science, banking, or economics luckily we have the corporate media and people like Al Gore to educate us, they saved the US economy with free trade before but this time they will save the whole planet. I wonder what Al Gore will do for an encore, he is truly amazing.

[AusDem]

7. errr? thanks for your contribution??

not sure what ur point is, but it feels very much like a FReeper comment, dressed up as psuedo progressive because you're also having a crack at bankers........

[unabelladonna]

8. the point is it will cost consumers more, but will enrich the greedy bastards who are already

stealing from humanity. i'm perplexed by the [political namecalling when it comes to this issue. i have to agree with the above DUer who says he's concerned about his own life. i am progressive but i just don't fall into lockstep about solutions for global warminng. you can't make it rain, you can't make it sunny.....or stop hurricanes....

[DissedByBush]

9. WWAGD?

What would Al Gore do?

Probably keep globetrotting on private jets while paying eco-indulgences to himself. That's how most people arrived in Copenhagen.

[unabelladonna]

10. solutions for global warming......

from the same person who brought us NAFTA. as far as i'm concerned gore is a corporate shill. yes, the presidency was stolen from him but he's hardly deserving of so much loyalty.

[swilton]

11. +1