Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

$44 Trillion Needed for Clean Energy Future

posted by Woods on Thursday May 15 2014, @08:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the everyone-check-your-mattress dept.

AnonTechie writes:

The global cost of securing a clean energy future is rising by the year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned Monday, estimating that an additional $44 trillion of investment was needed to meet 2050 carbon reduction targets. Releasing its biennial "Energy Technology Perspectives" report in Seoul, the agency said electricity would increasingly power the world's economies in the decades to come, rivalling oil as the dominant energy carrier. Surging electricity demand posed serious challenges, said IEA executive director Maria van der Hoeven.
"We must get it right, but we're on the wrong path at the moment," Van der Hoeven told reporters in the South Korean capital.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
$44 Trillion Needed for Clean Energy Future | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 39 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday May 15 2014, @09:34PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday May 15 2014, @09:34PM (#43965) Homepage Journal
    Guess we're not doing it then. Paying for it out of the government till would make the dollar worth less than the peso for the next century or two.
    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3  

  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 15 2014, @09:48PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday May 15 2014, @09:48PM (#43971)

    Yep, I'm doing fracking in my own backyard to help sustain the current model another 50 years or so.
    After that, it won't be my problem.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday May 16 2014, @02:59AM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday May 16 2014, @02:59AM (#44079) Homepage Journal
      Bob, bob, bob... If we did print the money, it would absolutely green up the planet. Nobody in the United States would be able to afford electricity or cars anymore except the rich. That would make the greenies happy, Mexicans suddenly leaving to find work in Mexico would make the neo-cons happy, the rest of us would be pretty pissed off though. I mean if you think third-world-level abject poverty is a good trade for greener energy, preach on brother.
      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.

      • (Score: 2) by Open4D on Friday May 16 2014, @09:54AM

        by Open4D (371) on Friday May 16 2014, @09:54AM (#44142) Journal

        But "averting catastrophe is eminently affordable [theguardian.com]".

        That refers to the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (i.e. the stuff they're publishing this year), specifically the Working Group 3 [www.ipcc.ch] publication (which has a Summary For Policymakers here [mitigation2014.org]).

         
        If there's even a small chance that they are right about that, and not your prediction of the "United States [in] third-world-level abject poverty", I think we should start by spending the amount of money they are suggesting.

        If we spend that much, and then they say, "ah ... yeah ... about that ... it turns out we actually need to spend a lot more ... which will mean third-world-level abject poverty", then we can start to question whether we are really willing to undergo that hardship for the sake of our grandchildren.