Paris Climate Deal Seen Costing $12.1 Trillion Over 25 Years

solar array wikimediaIf the world is serious about halting the worst effects of global warming, the renewable energy industry will require $12.1 trillion of investment over the next quarter century, or about 75 percent more than current projections show for its growth.

That’s the conclusion of a report setting out the scale of the challenge facing policymakers as they look for ways to implement the Paris Agreement that in December set a framework for more than 195 nations to rein in greenhouse gases.

The findings from Bloomberg New Energy Finance and Ceres, a Boston-based coalition of investors and environmentalists, show that wind parks, solar farms and other alternatives to fossil fuels are already on course to get $6.9 trillion over the next 25 years through private investment spurred on by government support mechanisms. Another $5.2 trillion is needed to reach the United Nations goal of holding warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) set out in the climate agreement.

“The clean energy industry could make a very significant contribution to achieving the lofty ambitions expressed by the Paris Agreement,” said Michael Liebreich, founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a London-based research group. “To do so, investment volume is going to need to more than double, and do so in the next three to five years. That sort of increase will not be delivered by business as usual. Closing the gap is both a challenge and an opportunity for investors.”

chart

The required expenditure averages about $484 billion a year over the period, compared with business-as-usual levels of $276 billion, according to Bloomberg calculations. Renewables attracted a record $329 billion of investment in 2015, BNEF estimates.

While the figures are large, they’re not as eye-watering as the International Energy Agency’s projection that it’ll cost $13.5 trillion between now and 2030 for countries to implement their Paris pledges, and that an extra $3 billion on top of that will help meet the temperature target. Those figures aren’t just limited to renewables: they also include energy efficiency measures.

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Save the 12$$Trillion and be Happy it is warming . If we humans make some small
    contribution to it , great , the plants ,animals and humans are far better off . Anyone think we would be better off with a cooling planet ?

    We all know climate changes with or without humans messing about . Does anyone seriously think we are going to tame mother nature ?

    Let’s celebrate global warming day ! (Should it occur without being NOAASIZED) .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Irene

    |

    Don’t you know that adding intermittent, unreliable wind and solar will INCREASE CO2? See Ontario Society of Professional Engineering Report. “Ontario’s Electricity Dilema- Achieving Low Emissions at Reasonable Rates” April 2015.

    http://www.ospe.on.ca/resource/resign/DOC_advocacy/2015_Presentation_Elec_Dilem.pdf

    Page 15 of 23. “Why Will Emissions Double as We Add Wind and Solar Plants?”

    -wind and solar require flexible backup generation
    -nuclear is too inflexible to backup renewables without expensive engineering changes to the reactors
    -flexible electric storage is too expensive at the moment
    -consequently natural gas provides backup for wind and solar in North America
    -when you add wind and solar you are actually forced to reduce nuclear generation to make room for more natural gas generation to provide flexible backup
    -Ontario currently produces electricity at less than 40 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh
    -wind and solar with natural gas backup produces electricity at about 200 grams of CO2 emissions/kWh. Therefore adding wind and solar to Ontario’s grid drives CO2 emissions higher. From 2016 to 2032…..CO2 emissions will DOUBLE

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Amber, I’m with you. I’m all for enjoying a warmer world. Unfortunately I don’t think we will get one and we might be headed for a cooler world.

    This article talks about private investment in renewable energy. Investors can be dumb for awhile but they soon wise up. With the largest bankruptcy in Spain’s history of renewable energy company Abengoa S.A., investors will be wising up quickly if they haven’t already.

    Admittedly I haven’t seen the details of the report on how the $12.1 Trillion figure was arrived on. It was almost certainly arrived at it by assuming linear relationships. For instance, if it cost 3X to convert 30% of the energy from fossil fuels to renewables, then it would cost 8X to convert 80%. I chose 80% because at one point the plan is to have an 80% reduction in green house gasses. The problem is there is not a linear relationship. Wind and solar power need a fossil fuel plant idling on standby for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. That can be done for a 30% reduction in emissions. For an 80% reduction, there would be too many emissions from the fossil fuel generation when renewables were not available and the 80% goal couldn’t be reached. That then requires extremely expensive systems for storing power to avoid the use of fossil fuel backup generation.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Sorry Irene

    CO2 has nothing to do with atmospheric or ground temperatures, trends or climate.

    The only significance CO2 has as an atmospheric component is that it is an

    gaseous fertilizer.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Irene, You reference increased CO2 with wind and solar . It is interesting that major whoops is not picked up by the media regardless of the false hype about it causing the earth to have a fever .
    Every chance we get that fact should raised with the people behind the green masks .
    So let’s get this straight … Greenie Group you are campaigning to increase CO2 by advocating for bird blenders and solar panels while saying CO2 is causing scary global warming . Why would you mislead the public ?
    CO2 is good and more is better . That’s why greenhouses add more and plants and animals have thrived in much higher CO2 environments than this .

    The con game that CO2 is bad for the planet because some in the scientific community and politicians have used it to further their own self interests .

    Thanks for the reference Irene . Let’s hope a few more in the media look behind the green masks to figure out the real motivations for the scam . There are many .

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.