$9 trillion is more than 10% of world GDP.
www.bbc.com/news/business-60135833
Trillions of dollars need to be spent every year for almost three decades to hit net zero targets, according to consultancy McKinsey.
The McKinsey report estimated that the annual cost of getting to net zero - when carbon dioxide emissions are completely reduced or offset - will be $9.2tn (£6.8tn). The world is already spending $5.7tn a year to lower the impact of fossil fuels and use alternatives.
DB2
There’s a cheaper way, but it doesn’t get much attention.
What happens to the environment if, after a while, there are only half as many humans to enjoy it?
Very much better environment, likely very much happier people on average.
It’s amazing how many currently destructive habits are entirely sustainable if fewer people are doing them.
My intent was not to suggest that we depopulate the earth, though a pinch of that might have its merits.
Rather, it was more to point out the absurdity of worrying about the CO2 impact of (say) flying to a global warming conference.
If it’s actual impact you care about, it matters orders of magnitudes more how many kids those delegates have, but almost nobody mentions it.
Mentioning what’s actually significant Just Isn’t Done. Trees and EVs are nice, but side shows.
https://discussion.fool.com/as-in-who-cares-what-happens-to-the-…
My intent was not to suggest that we depopulate the earth, though a pinch of that might have its merits.
Rather, it was more to point out the absurdity of worrying about the CO2 impact of (say) flying to a global warming conference.
If it’s actual impact you care about, it matters orders of magnitudes more how many kids those delegates have, but almost nobody mentions it.
Mentioning what’s actually significant Just Isn’t Done. Trees and EVs are nice, but side shows.
==========================================================
I totally agree with you and mongofitch. Thanks for your link to mongofitch’s post.
Jaak
What happens to the environment if, after a while, there are only half as many humans to enjoy it?
Then again, it makes a real significant difference which group would get ‚cut in half‘:
The world’s wealthy must radically change their lifestyles to tackle climate change, a report says.
It says the world’s wealthiest 1% produce double the combined carbon emissions of the poorest 50%, according to the UN. The wealthiest 5% alone – the so-called “polluter elite” - contributed 37% of emissions growth between 1990 and 2015.
Ooh Ooh Jumpin’ Jehoshephat!, I got a great idea!
The wealthiest 5% alone – the so-called “polluter elite” - contributed 37% of emissions growth between 1990 and 2015.
Why don’t we put a steadily rapidly increasing world wide tax on fossil fuels, rebating much of it to poor people so that they are not paying more for their necessities, but creating a strong disincentive to everyone else to shift to other sources of energy? And the most able to pay happen to be the ones most in need of such an incentive.
Who could possibly object to such a policy?
David fb
Yeah, I meant “strong incentive” not “strong disincentive” and I shoulda put
SNARK SHARK SNARK all over the.
David fb
Who could possibly object to such a policy?
I am drawing blanks, too.
Wait…:
Jeff Bezos’ Space Joyride Emitted a Lifetime’s Worth of Carbon Pollution
A new report chronicles the staggeringly unequal distribution of carbon emissions tied to the ultra-wealthy’s lifestyles.
https://gizmodo.com/jeff-bezos-space-joyride-emitted-a-lifet…
"Why don’t we put a steadily rapidly increasing world wide tax on fossil fuels, rebating much of it to poor people so that they are not paying more for their necessities, but creating a strong incentive to everyone else to shift to other sources of energy? And the most able to pay happen to be the ones most in need of such an incentive.
Who could possibly object to such a policy?"
Because…everyone pays.
All municipal services cost goes up. Real estate taxes go up to cover it. The poor pay that tax. Plus they likely have older less efficient cars with lower MPG than middle class folks, often 3 and 4 owner 10 and 15 and 20 years.
Who determines who is poor?
The cost of food rises by at least double the increase in fuel taxes. Farming, transportation, food processing, shipping…make things a lot more expensive.
In addition, US factories now hampered with higher costs for energy, including electricity from natural gas (which is about 50% of total generation since the sun doesn’t shine at night)…will be less competitive with exports. More Asian imports. Fewer US jobs.
Any tax ripples through the system and the ‘wise’ WOKE folks in DC will likely siphon 30% off the top to pay for administration and government ‘green programs’ like buying a zillion EVs so THEY don’t have to pay the tax, and slosh out the remainder to political favored groups. first…
Oh, did I mention inflation? With the cost of everything going up, due to shipping, higher employee demands for higher wages to cover their commute costs, higher heating bills, higher you think another couple percent inflation on top of 5% already is reason to object to ‘such a policy’?
Likely folks bills will go up 30% and the government will hand back a few bucks to ‘the poor’ that won’t cover it.
Of course, as more folks move to ‘green energy’, less and less tax will be collected and the system will quickly implode, too… that after the economy implodes.
t.
The world’s wealthy must radically change their lifestyles to tackle climate change, a report says.
It says the world’s wealthiest 1% produce double the combined carbon emissions of the poorest 50%, according to the UN. The wealthiest 5% alone – the so-called “polluter elite” - contributed 37% of emissions growth between 1990 and 2015.
===================================================
Is this what makes the wealthiest 5% cause 37% of carbon emissions:
Excessive traveling by airplanes, ships, yachts, power boats, giant RVs and large automobiles/trucks which are powered by fossil fuels and not energy efficient.
Owning one or more huge houses with swimming pools, huge gardens with grass lawns, air conditioning and heating all powered by fossil fuels and not energy efficient.
Having energy intensive hobbies like race cars, race boats and space travel.
Owning illegal drug, crypto and other enterprises.
But there is something wrong with the statement that 5% of wealthiest causes 37% of the carbon emissions. If the 5% of the wealthiest were eliminated, then carbon emissions would not be reduced 37% because the study says nothing about industrial, commercial, educational, medical, government and military emissions. These emissions serve 5% of the wealthiest and 95% of the rest of us. Eliminating the 5% of the wealthiest will not reduce the emissions of the other 95% of us in these areas.
Jaak
t: Of course, as more folks move to ‘green energy’, less and less tax will be collected and the system will quickly implode, too… that after the economy implodes.
===============================================
Your rant is way off base with reality!
Carbon tax works well and is doing the job in many countries. There are currently more than 40 countries with a carbon tax implemented: Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, the European Union (27 countries), Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, UK, and Ukraine.
https://earth.org/what-countries-have-a-carbon-tax/#:~:text=….
https://www.statista.com/statistics/483590/prices-of-impleme…
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/laser-talks/carbon-prices-a…
Jaak
The OP report says a 60% increase in capital spending on energy and land-use systems is needed (increase from $5.7 to $9.2 trillion per year), or about $100 trillion more over 30 years. World net worth is about $500 trillion. World GDP was $81 trillion in 2017, and world real GDP is growing about 3.5% per year. More government bonds and more energy sector capital spending is one possible path.
The net-zero transition: What it would cost, what it could bring, January 2022
“Capital spending on physical assets for energy and land-use systems in the net-zero transition between 2021 and 2050 would amount to about $275 trillion, or $9.2 trillion per year on average, an annual increase of as much as $3.5 trillion from today… The spending would be front-loaded, rising from 6.8 percent of GDP today to as much as 8.8 percent of GDP between 2026 and 2030 before falling. While these spending requirements are large and financing has yet to be established, many investments have positive return profiles (even independent of their role in avoiding rising physical risks) and should not be seen as merely costs.”
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/o…
The rise and rise of the global balance sheet: How productively are we using our wealth?, November 15, 2021
“The global balance sheet and net worth more than tripled between 2000 and 2020. Assets grew from $440 trillion, or about 13.2 times GDP, in 2000 to $1,540 trillion in 2020, while net worth grew from $160 trillion to $510 trillion.”
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-i….
World GDP over the last two millennia
Total output of the world economy; adjusted for inflation and expressed in international-$ in 2011 prices.
Doubled in 20 years ($50T in 1993, $100T in 2013).
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-gdp-over-the-last-t…
$9 trillion is more than 10% of world GDP.
Gonna cost much more if we don’t
Trillions of dollars need to be spent every year for almost three decades to hit net zero targets, according to consultancy McKinsey.
And that, apparently, is a low estimate.
From the BBC article:
“It does not include spending to support other adjustments - for example, to reskill and redeploy workers, compensate for stranded assets, or account for the loss of value pools in specific parts of the economy.”
The report cost is basically a best case scenario, “if all goes right, the transition is smooth with no unexpected technological failures or resource shortages, no cheating, and government operations are efficient”, then the costs of hitting net zero will be only $275 trillion by 2050.
The report can be downloaded here:
www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insig…
“As a result, it is likely that real outcomes will diverge from these estimates, particularly if the net-zero transition takes a more disorderly path or restricting warming to 1.5°C proves unachievable. Spending requirements could be higher, for example due to the additional investment needed to maintain flexibility and redundancy in energy systems, or heightened physical risks and commensurate adaptation costs.”
In addition, significant money, resources, and manpower are diverted to government agencies to establish rules and mandates for the transition, monitor its implementation and measure its results, and to police the programs.
DB2
and government operations are efficient
Hey, I write fantasy, and that’s just a bit too far…
From the McKinsey site https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/o… :
"
The transformation of the global economy needed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 would be universal and significant, requiring $9.2 trillion in annual average spending on physical assets, $3.5 trillion more than today… Accounting for expected increases in spending, as incomes and populations grow, as well as for currently legislated transition policies, the required increase in spending would be lower, but still about $1 trillion.
"
Hmm, so accounting for current spending, laws, and expected changes in population and wealth, we go from a top line number of $9.2 trillion per year down to $1 trillion per year. That’s an enormous difference.
"
The economic transformation required to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 will be massive in scale and complex in execution, yet the costs and dislocations that would arise from a more disorderly transition would likely be far greater, and the transition would prevent the further buildup of physical risks. It is important not to view the transition as only onerous; the required economic transformation will not only create immediate economic opportunities but also open up the prospect of a fundamentally transformed global economy with lower energy costs, and numerous other benefits—for example, improved health outcomes and enhanced conservation of natural capital.
"
The improved health outcomes mentioned in passing above are enormous and potentially offset the entire cost of the transition, or more. A recent Harvard study attributed 8 million deaths in 2018 alone to fossil fuel air pollution, 1/5 of deaths that year. The economic costs of illness and death, caused by burning coal, oil, gas and to a much lesser extent, natural gas, are staggering.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-p…
"
The study, “Global Mortality From Outdoor Fine Particle Pollution Generated by Fossil Fuel Combustion,” published in Environmental Research, is based on a groundbreaking analysis that enabled the researchers to directly attribute premature deaths from fine particulate pollution (PM 2.5) to fossil fuel combustion.
“Often, when we discuss the dangers of fossil fuel combustion, it’s in the context of CO2 and climate change and overlook the potential health impact of the pollutants co-emitted with greenhouse gases,” said Dr. Joel Schwartz, Professor at Harvard Chan School and co-author of the study. “We hope that by quantifying the health consequences of fossil fuel combustion, we can send a clear message to policymakers and stakeholders of the benefits of a transition to alternative energy sources.”
"
Trillions of dollars need to be spent every year for almost three decades to hit net zero targets, according to consultancy McKinsey.
And in the news from New York State this last week:
Activists, progressives say state needs to spend $15B in climate fight
www.timesunion.com/news/article/Activists-progressives-say-1…
With a 2019 state law calling for a zero-carbon economy by 2040, a broad coalition of environmental and social justice activists Wednesday said lawmakers and Gov. Kathy Hochul need to commit $15 billion this year to start toward that goal…The speakers didn’t have a lot of immediate detailed answers about where the $15 billion should come from or if it should supplant other spending priorities…
[That $15 billion would be 7% of the state’s budget.]
DB2