Air Pollution Costs the West Almost $1 Trillion Annually

Air Pollution Costs the West Almost $1 Trillion Annually | 07/12/14
by John Brian Shannon John Brian Shannon

Air pollution has a very real cost to our civilization via increased healthcare costs, premature deaths, lowered productivity, environmental degradation with resultant lowered crop yields, increased water consumption and higher taxation.

However, air pollution is only one cost associated with fossil fuel use.

Smokestack Image Credit: Alfred Palmer
Smokestack image credit: Alfred Palmer

There are three main costs associated with energy

  1. The retail price that you pay at the gas pump or on your utility bill for example (which is paid by consumers)
  2. The subsidy cost that governments pay energy producers and utility companies (which is ultimately paid by taxpayers)
  3. The externality cost of each type of energy (which is paid by taxpayers, by increased prices for consumers, and the impact on, or the cost to, the environment)

Externality cost in Europe and the U.S.A.

A recent report from the European Environment Agency (EEA) states that high air pollution levels (one type of externality) in the EU cost society €189 billion every year and it’s a number that increases every year. (That’s $235 billion when converted to U.S. dollars)

To put that number in some kind of context, the cost of the air pollution externality in the EU annually, is equal to the annual GDP of Finland.

Let’s state that even more clearly. The amount of taxation paid by EU taxpayers every year to pay for airborne fossil fuel damage is equal to Finland’s entire annual economic output!

It’s getting worse, not better, notwithstanding recent renewable energy programs and incentives. Even the admirable German Energiewende program is barely making an impact when we look at the overall EU air quality index.

Of the 30 biggest facilities it identified as causing the most damage, 26 were power plants, mainly fueled by coal in Germany and eastern Europe. — Barbara Lewis (Reuters)

That’s just Europe. It’s even worse in the U.S., according to a landmark Harvard University report which says coal-fired power generation alone costs the U.S. taxpayer over $500 billion/yr in externality cost.

Each stage in the life cycle of coal—extraction, transport, processing, and combustion—generates a waste stream and carries multiple hazards for health and the environment. These costs are external to the coal industry and thus are often considered as “externalities.”

We estimate that the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually.

Many of these so-called externalities are, moreover, cumulative.

Accounting for the damages conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated, making wind, solar, and other forms of non fossil fuel power generation, along with investments in efficiency and electricity conservation methods, economically competitive.

We focus on Appalachia, though coal is mined in other regions of the United States and is burned throughout the world.” — Full Cost Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal by Dr. Paul Epstein, the Director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment, and eleven other co-authors

The report also notes that electricity rates would need to rise by another .09 to .27 cents per kilowatt hour in the U.S. to cover the externality cost of American coal-fired electricity production.

The externality cost for solar or wind power plants is zero, just for the record

Dr. Epstein and his team notes: “Coal burning produces one and a half times the CO2 emissions of oil combustion and twice that from burning natural gas (for an equal amount of energy produced).”

There’s the argument to switch from coal to natural gas right there

Also in the Harvard report in regards to the intrinsic inefficiency of coal:

Energy specialist Amory Lovins estimates that after mining, processing, transporting and burning coal, and transmitting the electricity, only about 3% of the energy in the coal is used in incandescent light bulbs.

…In the United States in 2005, coal produced 50% of the nation’s electricity but 81% of the CO2 emissions.

For 2030, coal is projected to produce 53% of U.S. power and 85% of the U.S. CO2 emissions from electricity generation.

None of these figures includes the additional life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from coal, including methane from coal mines, emissions from coal transport, other GHG emissions (e.g., particulates or black carbon), and carbon and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from land transformation in the case of MTR coal mining.” — Full Cost Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal report

It’s not like this information is secret. All European, American, and Asian policymakers now know about the externality costs of coal vs. renewable energy. It’s just that until recently everyone thought that the cost of switching to renewable energy, was higher than the cost of fossil externalities.

It’s not only an economic problem, it’s also a health problem

Air pollution impacts human health, resulting in extra healthcare costs, lost productivity, and fewer work days. Other impacts are reduced crop yields and building damage.

Particulate matter and ground-level ozone are two of the main pollutants that come from coal.

90% or more of Europeans living in cities are exposed to harmful air pollution. Bulgaria and Poland have some of the worst pollution of the European countries.

An estimated 400,000 premature deaths in European cities were linked to air pollution in 2011. — CleanTechnica

Externality cost in China

Remember the Beijing Olympics where the city’s industry and commercial business were shut down to allow visitors and athletes to breathe clean air during their stay (and Wow!) look at their clear blue sky for the first time in decades. Great for tourists! Bad for Beijing business and industry, with the exception of the tourism industry (for one month) of course.

The Common Language Project reported in 2008 that premature deaths in China resulting from fossil fuel air pollution were surpassing 400,000 per year.

China faces a number of serious environmental issues caused by overpopulation and rapid industrial growth. Water pollution and a resulting shortage of drinking water is one such issue, as is air pollution caused by an over-reliance on coal as fuel. It has been estimated that 410,000 Chinese die as a result of pollution each year. — clpmag.org

The die is cast since it is becoming common knowledge that renewable energy merely requires a small subsidy to assist with power plant construction and grid harmonization — while fossil fuels continue to require truly massive and ongoing subsidies to continue operations.

Subsidy cost of fossil fuels

Already there is talk of ending fossil fuel subsidies, which in 2014 will top $600 billion worldwide

Want to add up the total costs (direct economic subsidy and externality cost subsidy) of fossil fuels?

Add the $600 billion global fossil fuel subsidy to the to the $2 trillion dollars of global externality cost and you arrive at (approx) $2.5 trillion dollars per year. Then there is the more than 1 million premature deaths globally caused by air pollution. All of that is subsidized by the world’s taxpayers.

Compare that to the total costs of renewable energy. Well, for starters, the economic subsidy dollar amount for renewable energy is much less (about $100 billion per year globally) and there are no externality costs.

No deaths. No illness. No direct or related productivity loss due to a host of fossil fuel related issues (oil spills, coal car derailment, river contamination, explosions in pipelines or factories) for just a very few examples.

The fossil fuel industry is a very mature industry, it has found ways to do more with ever-fewer employees, and it gets more subsidy dollars than any other economic segment on the planet.

By comparison, the renewable energy industry is a new segment, one that requires many thousands of workers and it gets only relative handfuls of subsidy dollars. And, no externalities.

It becomes clearer every day that high-carbon fossil must be displaced by renewable energy

No longer is it some arcane moral argument that we should switch to renewables for the good of the Earth; Fossil fuel is proving to be a major factor in human illness/premature deaths, it sends our money abroad to purchase energy instead of keeping our money in our own countries, and the wholly-taxpayer-funded subsidy cost of fossil is out of control and getting worse with each passing year.

The time for dithering is past. It’s time to make the switch to renewable energy, and to start, we need to remove the worst polluting power plants from the grid (and at the very least, replace them with natural gas powered plants) or even better, replace them with hybrid wind and solar power plants.

To accomplish this, governments need to begin diverting some of the tens of billions of dollars annually paid to the fossil fuel industry to the renewable energy industry.

Germany’s Energiewende program was (and still is) an admirable first step. Once Germany has completed it’s energy transition away from oil, coal and nuclear — having replaced all of that generation capacity with renewable energy and natural gas, only then can it be hailed a complete success — and German leaders should go down in history as being instrumental in changing the world’s 21st century energy paradigm.

Dank an unsere deutschen Freunde! (With thanks to our German friends!)

If only every nation would sign-on to matching or exceeding the ongoing German example, we wouldn’t have 1 million premature deaths globally due to fossil fuel burning, we wouldn’t have almost 2 trillion dollars of externality cost, we wouldn’t need $600 billion dollars of direct subsidies for fossil fuel producers — and we would all live in a healthier environment, and our plant, animal, and aquatic life would return to their normally thriving state.

Taxes would reflect the global $2.5 trillion drop in combined fossil fuel subsidy and fossil fuel externality costs, employment stats would improve, productivity would increase, the tourism industry would receive a boost, and enjoyment of life for individuals would rebound.

It’s a truism in the energy industry that all energy is subsidized, of that there is no doubt. Even renewable energy receives tiny amounts of subsidy, relative to fossil.

But it is now apparent that over the past 100 years, getting ‘the best (energy) bang for the buck’ has been our nemesis. The energy world that we once knew, is about to change.

The world didn’t come to an end when air travel began to replace rail travel in the 1950’s. Now almost everyone travels by air, and only few travel by train. And what about the railway investors didn’t they lose their money when the age of rail tapered-off? No, they simply moved their money to the new transportation mode and made as much or more money in the airline business.

Likewise, the world will not come to an end now that renewable energy is beginning to displace coal and oil. Investors will simply reallocate their money and make as much or more money in renewable energy.

As Nuclear steps aside, Renewable Energy steps up to power Europe

As Nuclear steps aside, Renewable Energy steps up to power Europe | 16/08/14
by John Brian Shannon John Brian Shannon

Nuclear reactors are starting to shut down in Europe

It began in earnest in the wake of the Fukushima disaster when Germany inspected its problem-plagued nuclear power plants and decided to take 9 of its nuclear power plants offline in 2011 and the rest offline by 2022.

There is plenty of public support in the country for Germany’s planned nuclear closures, even with the additional fee added to each German electricity bill to pay for nuclear power plant decommissioning, which completes in 2045.

Switzerland likewise has decided to get out of the nuclear power business beginning in 2015 and decommission their nuclear power plants by 2045.

Other European nations are also looking at retiring their nuclear power plants. But the news today is about the UK, Belgium, Germany and Spain.

Heysham_Nuclear_Power_Station UK operated by EDF
Heysham Nuclear Power Station in the UK which is operated by EDF of France. Image courtesy: CleanTechnica.com

In the UK, four (French-operated) EDF reactors built in 1983 have been shut down after one of them was found to have a crack in its centre spine. (EDF stands for Electricity de France which is a French utility responsible for managing many nuclear reactors)

At first only the affected unit was taken offline (in June) but upon further inspection it was determined that the other three were at risk to fail in the coming months. Whether or not these four reactors can be repaired economically — all were scheduled to be decommissioned before 2020.

The shortfall in electrical generation due to these unscheduled nuclear power plant shutdowns has been met by 5 GW of new wind power generation, which has seamlessly stepped in to fill demand.

Additional to that, 5 GW of solar power has been added to the UK grid within the past 5 years. And that’s in cloudy olde England, mates!

In Belgium, 3 out of 5 of their nuclear power plants are offline until December 31, 2014 due to maintenance, sabotage, or terror attacks — depending who you talk to.

Belgium’s Doel 4 reactor experienced a deliberate malfunction last week and workers in the country’s n-plants are henceforth directed to move around inside the plants in pairs.

Also, their Tihange 2 reactor won’t be ready to resume power production until March, 2021. See this continuously-updated list of nuclear power plant shutdowns in Belgium.

Further, the utility has advised citizens that hour-long blackouts will commence in October due to a combination of unexpected n-plant shutdowns and higher demand at that time of year.

Belgian energy company Electrabel said its Doel 4 nuclear reactor would stay offline at least until the end of this year after major damage to its turbine, with the cause confirmed as sabotage.

Doel 4 is the youngest of four reactors at the Doel nuclear plant, 20 km north of Antwerp, Belgium’s second-biggest city.

The country has three more reactors in Tihange, 25 km southwest of the city of Liege.

Doel 1 and 2, which came on line in 1975, are set to close in 2015. Tihange 1, which also started operation in 1975 and was designed to last 30 years, got a 10-year extension till 2015.

The two closed reactors Doel 3 and Tihange 2 were connected to the grid in 1982 and 1983. Doel 4 and Tihange 3, which came on line in 1985, were operating normally until the closure of Doel 4 last week.

The shutdown of Doel 4’s nearly 1 gigawatt (GW) of electricity generating capacity as well as closures of two other reactors (Doel 3 and Tihange 2) for months because of cracks in steel reactor casings adds up to just over 3 GW of Belgian nuclear capacity that is offline, more than half of the total.

In Britain, EDF Energy, owned by France’s EDF, took three of its nuclear reactors offline for inspection on Monday after finding a defect in a reactor of a similar design. – Reuters

In Germany, the nuclear power generation capacity missing since 2011 has been met by a combination of solar, wind, bio, natural gas, and unfortunately some coal. But that sounds worse than it is.

According to the Fraunhofer Institute, renewable energy produced about 81 TWh, or 31% of the nation’s electricity during the first half of 2014. Solar production is up 28%, wind 19% and biomass 7% over last year.

Meanwhile, with the exception of nuclear energy, all conventional sources are producing less. The output from gas powered plants was half of what it had been in 2010 and brown coal powered plants are producing at a similar level to 2010-2012. – CleanTechnica.com

Let’s see what our friends at the Fraunhofer Institute have to say in their comparison of the first half of 2013 vs. the first half of 2014.

German electricity production H1 2013 - H1 2014
Fraunhofer Institute compares energy production between the first half of 2013 and the first half of 2014.

Although unspoken by power company executives operating in Germany, Spain, and some other European countries, the panic felt by traditional power generators is due to the massive changes in ‘their’ market since 2009.

Things move slowly in the utility industry — ten years is seen as a mere eyeblink in time, as the industry changes very little decade over decade. Recent changes must be mind-blowing for European power company executives.

European-union-renewables-chart
European Union renewables by Eurostat — Renewable energy statistics. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons This map displays 2012 results with a total of 20-30% renewable energy for 2012, but in 2013 renewable energy in Portugal registered 58.3% overall. By 2014, Portugal expects that 70% of its energy will come from renewable energy.

It occurs to me that the end of the conventional energy stranglehold on Europe parallels the ending of Star Wars VI.

Help me take this mask off

It’s a mask to hide behind when conventional power producers don’t want the facts aired.

Fossil and nuclear don’t want their Subsidies or Externalities advertised. Global fossil fuel and nuclear subsides topped $600 billion dollars in 2014, while the externality cost of fossil and nuclear may be as high as $2 trillion dollars annually. That’s a lot of hiding, right there.

Fossil fuel and nuclear power power producers don’t want the subsidies they’re paid to be publicly advertised — and they don’t want the renewable energy industry to have subsidies at all

Externalities are simply another form of subsidy to the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries which often take the form of massive public healthcare spending or massive environmental spending to mitigate the gigatonnes of toxic airborne emissions, or to monitor or repair environmental catastrophes such as oil spills.

Spain has ended it’s Feed-in-Tariff subsidy scheme for renewable energy, while keeping conventional power producer subsidies in place.

Not only that, suddenly homeowners aren’t allowed to collect power from the Sun or harvest power from the wind unless it is for their own use. Electricity cannot be collected by Spanish residents and then sold to the grid for example, nor to anyone else.

Spain’s government has taken it yet another step in a bid to keep the conventional energy companies from drowning in their tears. After a meteoric rise in wind and solar capacity, Spain has now taxed renewable energy power producers retroactively to 2012 and ruled that renewable energy will be capped to a 7.5% maximum profit. Renewable energy returns over the 7.5% threshold becomes instant tax revenue for the government. (Quite unlike conventional energy producers in the country which can make any amount of profit they want and continue to keep their subsidies)

While all of this has been going on, Spain and Portugal have quietly lowered their combined CO2 output by 21.3% since 2012 (equal to 61.4 million fewer tonnes of CO2) thanks to renewable energy.

But you’ll die

Not only has European renewable energy now stepped up to fill the multiple voids due to nuclear power plant maintenance and sabotage shutdowns, it has scooped incredible market share from conventional power producers.

In January 2014, 91% of the monthly needed Portuguese electricity consumption was generated by renewable sources, although the real figure stands at 78%, as 14% was exported. – Wikipedia

Unwittingly, the German and Spanish power companies have provided the highest possible compliment to the renewable energy industry, which, if publicized would read something like this;

We can’t compete with renewable energy that has equal amounts of subsidy. Therefore, remove the renewable energy subsidy while we keep ‘our’ traditional subsidies, until we can reorient our business model – otherwise, we perish!

Nothing can stop that now

Ending the European renewable energy Feed-in-Tariff schemes will only temporarily slow solar and wind installations as both have reached price-parity in recent months — and that, against still-subsidized conventional power generators!

Even bigger changes are coming to the European electricity grid over the next few years. Nothing can stop that now.

Tell your sister; You were right about me

Conventional power producers in Europe provided secure and reliable power for decades, it was what has powered the European postwar success story — but having the electricity grid all to themselves for decades meant that Europe’s utilities became set in their ways and although powerful, were not able to adapt quickly enough to a new kind of energy with zero toxicity and lower per unit cost.

Renewable energy, at first unguided and inexperienced, quickly found a role for itself and is now able to stand on its own feet without subsidies. Quite unlike conventional power generators.

Considering the sheer scale of the energy changes underway in Europe, conventional energy has been superceded by a superior kind of energy and with surprisingly little drama.

Related Articles

HSBC Knocks Europeans for ‘Low Ambition’ on Climate Change

by Guest Contributor Sophie Vorrath.

Renewable Energy needed here!
HSBC’s report says European efforts to lower emissions are insufficient to speed along renewable energy adoption and thereby avoid the most severe levels of climate change. It is already too late to avoid moderate climate change — as those emissions are already in the air and in steadily increasing concentrations over recent decades.

Originally published on RenewEconomy.

Europe’s climate policy proposals reflect the lowest level of ambition required to keep global warming at 2°C, while its goals on renewable energy are “disappointing” and bad news for the industry, according to a new report by banking giant HSBC.

Released on Wednesday, the report is based on the publication of the European Commission policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030, which it describes as “a first indication of the EU negotiating position in the run up to a global climate deal in Paris 2015.”

In a nutshell, the EU 2030 climate and energy package proposals are for a 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG’s) and an EU renewables share of at least 27 per cent in energy consumption, with no individual country goals.

The HSBC report describes the 40 per cent by 2030 GHG aim as “modest” but expected, adding that it “implies a 2% CAGR (compound annual growth rate) for GHG reduction from now on, increasing ambition from the 0.2% pa rate of reduction left for delivery of the 2020 goal.”

But in the context of the long-term goal of an 80 per cent cut in greenhouse gases by 2050, the bloc’s proposals “offer the lowest level of climate ambition” possible, says the report.

“This is the lower end of the GHG emission reduction range (80- 95%) expected from the developed countries by 2050, to limit the global temperature increase to 2°C,” says the report.

“The 2030 GHG reduction target needs to be translated into national GHG targets for the non-ETS sectors before 2021. In addition, member states need to draw up their national plans for competitive, secure and sustainable energy for the period up to 2030.”

On renewables, HSBC describes the 27 per cent goal for the proportion of renewable energy in the overall mix by 2030 as “disappointing,” noting that it suggests growth of renewables in the energy mix will actually slow from a rate of 5 per cent per annum in 2010-2020, to 2 per cent during the 2020-2030 decade.

“The proposed target implies a decline in the growth rate of renewable installations from 2021-30 compared with 2011-20,” says the report (see charts below). “For electricity, from 2020-2030 we estimate 150GW of total new renewable capacity addition, compared with 210GW during the previous decade.”

And while the report notes that this scenario is “marginally better” than the EU trends to 2050 scenario, which points to just a 1 per cent renewable energy growth rate in 2020-30, it stresses that the 2030 package is, on balance, “a negative” for Europe’s renewable energy industry, with no new target for energy efficiency.

“(The research) shows more differences in views in Europe on renewable energy targets than for GHGs,” says the report. “For instance, the UK and Poland have strongly opposed any mandating of renewable targets, whereas Germany and France favoured it.”

The proposed package also provides nations like the UK with the option to choose nuclear technology over renewable expansion. In particular, says the report, there appears to be “increased risk for the offshore wind technology given its higher capital costs and project development risks.”

“Recently, Germany announced its plan to scale down its 2020 offshore wind target from 10GW to 6.5GW, while also limiting annual wind and solar installations to 2.5GW each.”

“We now see increasing downside risks for offshore wind targets in the UK, the largest offshore wind market, not only in entire Europe but also globally. In case of a scale down in the UK offshore wind expectations, supply chain development and technology cost reductions are likely to slow down, thereby adversely impacting the offshore wind installations globally.”

In the absence of country-specific renewable targets, the report points to the carbon price as “an important driver for the economics around renewable capacity additions.”

“The European Commission, rather ambitiously in our view, expects carbon prices to increase to €40/tonne in 2030 under the proposed framework, from an estimated price of €5/tonne in 2020,” says the report. “Prices at €40/t would help accelerate a switch from coal to gas and renewable technologies.”

Repost.Us - Republish This Article

This article, HSBC: Europeans Dragging Their Feet On Climate Action, is syndicated from Clean Technica and is posted here with permission.

Intense EU Negotiations Result in Binding Renewable Energy Targets

by Joshua S Hill.

Tough EU negotiations have resulted in a 40% reduction in CO2 levels and an increase of 27% for renewable energy.
Tough EU negotiations have resulted in a 40% reduction in CO2 levels (compared to 1990 levels) and for 27% of demand to be met by renewable energy. These targets must be met by 2030 and are binding on EU nations as a whole.

Following intense negotiations the European Union has announced a series of climate-based goals for the whole Union as part of the new EU framework on climate and energy for 2030.

Announced on Wednesday, the new framework includes a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 40% below 1990 levels, a Union-wide binding target for renewable energy of at least 27%, renewed ambitions for energy efficiency policies, a new governance system, and a set of new indicators to ensure a competitive and secure energy system.

“Climate action is central for the future of our planet, while a truly European energy policy is key for our competitiveness,” said European Commission President José Manuel Barroso. “Today’s package proves that tackling the two issues simultaneously is not contradictory, but mutually reinforcing.”

“It is in the EU’s interest to build a job-rich economy that is less dependent on imported energy through increased efficiency and greater reliance on domestically produced clean energy,” continued Barroso.

“An ambitious 40% greenhouse reduction target for 2030 is the most cost-effective milestone in our path towards a low-carbon economy. And the renewables target of at least 27% is an important signal: to give stability to investors, boost green jobs and support our security of supply.”

While the 27% is a step in the right direction, some critics are suggesting that it doesn’t go far enough, specifically in regards to the lack of nationally binding targets.

“While it is pleasing to see the EU Commission recognise that renewable energy is a key part of future energy solutions across Europe, the lack of ambition in not ensuring there are national binding targets for renewable energy is a disappointment,” said RenewableUK Chief Executive Maria McCaffery.

”This is a missed opportunity for member states to take collective and serious action on the drive for clean, sustainable, renewable energy, which is the best option for reducing our carbon emissions.”

The United Kingdom was one of the loudest voices during negotiations, calling for at least a 40% cut in greenhouse gas emissions, and RenewableUK hope that the UK will similarly lead the way with binding renewable energy targets.

“The Commission has gone out of its way to point out that member states are still free to set their own nationally binding renewable energy targets, so it is not too late for the UK Government to take leadership on this issue,” said McCaffery. “To meet the binding Greenhouse Gas targets and also the UK Government’s stated aim of tackling climate change, we need to keep investing in the world beating renewable sources we have, which can also bring thousands of jobs and help our energy security.”

The 2030 framework will be supported by a detail analysis on energy prices and costs, which assess the key drivers and compares prices across the European Union with those of its main trading partners.

Repost.Us - Republish This Article

This article, EU Sets Binding Renewable Energy Targets After Tough Negotiations, is syndicated from Clean Technica and is posted here with permission.

About the Author

Joshua S. HillJoshua S Hill I’m a Christian, a nerd, a geek, a liberal left-winger, and believe that we’re pretty quickly directing planet-Earth into hell in a handbasket! I work as Associate Editor for the Important Media Network and write for CleanTechnica and Planetsave. I also write for Fantasy Book Review (.co.uk), Amazing Stories, the Stabley Times and Medium.   I love words with a passion, both creating them and reading them.

EU Study says 40% Emission Cuts Possible With Low-Cost Measures

by Nathan

The European Union could cut its carbon emissions by as much as 40% (against 1990 levels) by the year 2030 using nothing but “low-cost” measures, according to a new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

The study — undertaken with the aid of 11 other notable research groups — makes it clear that significant cuts can be made to the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions, even relatively rapidly, while having only very negligible negative effects (if any) with regard to the economy. To be precise, the study predicts that such cuts “would be likely to cost less than an additional 0.7% of economic activity.”

The EU's Potsdam Institute study says 40% Emission Cuts Possible With Low-Cost Measures
The EU’s Potsdam Institute study says 40% Emission Cuts Possible With Low-Cost Measures.

Business Green provides some context on the study:

The findings were released today ahead of the announcement next week of the European Commission’s proposals for a new set of climate targets and policies to replace the current targets for 2020s. According to various reports, key figures within Brussels still remain divided on the level of emission reduction targets that should be adopted for 2030, with speculation mounting that the bloc could opt for a weaker than expected target of 35 percent. Moreover, it remains uncertain as to whether or not member states will opt to extend current targets for the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures through to 2030 or back UK calls for such technology-specific targets to be shelved. The new report argues that more ambitious emissions targets of up to 40 percent can be met using existing and cost-effective technologies.

“In the next two decades, it is possible to achieve the transformation using existing technologies,” stated lead researcher Brigitte Knopf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Who also noted that “the modelling showed that after 2030 new technologies would be required to deliver the deep 80 percent emission cuts the bloc has pledged to provide by 2050.”

Continuing along that line of reasoning, Knopf argued that aggressive new targets and policies are a necessity — both with regard to achieving cuts now, and also with regard to spurring the development of “innovative new technologies”.

“A clear price signal has to be set today, for instance in the European Emissions Trading System,” she said. “It would provide an incentive for innovation that would prevent energy systems from being locked into long-lasting investments in CO2-intensive technologies, such as coal-fired power plants.”

Interestingly, the modeling from the new study also suggests that there are a number of quite different options available to policymakers for achieving the goal of a 40% cut by 2030 — anything from ramping up the deployment of renewable energy technologies, to improving energy efficiency, to building more nuclear power plants, etc.

Repost.Us - Republish This Article

This article, EU Carbon Emissions Could Be Cut By 40% By 2030 Using Only Low-Cost Measures, is syndicated from Clean Technica and is posted here with permission.

About the Author

NathanNathan For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. – Ecclesiastes 3:19