
Kevin Bullis reports that the new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is out, the first of which came out last fall. This new one considers how to limit greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the most serious effects of climate change. The report analyzes the cost of taking steps to stabilize greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere, switching from coal to solar power, for example, will increase electricity prices and create a drag on the economy. It found that in a best-case scenario, limiting greenhouse gas concentrations to levels low enough to keep global warming to an increase of less than two degrees Celsius would cut global economic consumption by 2.9 to 11.4% by 2100. That could amount to between $9 trillion and $80 trillion.
The report found that if solar and wind power fall short of targets, it would increase the cost of limiting global warming, but only by a modest amount, about 6%. But costs could more than double if carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is not deployed. That is because while solar power could be replaced with alternatives such as nuclear power, there are often no alternatives to CCS. For example, it is the only technology that can reduce the emissions of existing coal-fired and gas-fired power plants, some of which will stay in operation for decades. It also might be the best way to limit emissions from some industrial processes, such as making steel.
CCS for fossil fuel plants, industrial plants, biomass power plants, would have to increase by about 1,000 times by 2030 and 10,000 times by 2100 in models that limit greenhouse gases to 450 ppm. A lot of publicity was given to the fact that the IPCC says limiting warming is doable, Stavins, of Harvard says. But the situation is not as rosy as it has been characterized, he says.
I2M WP Eds note that nuclear power was mentioned only in passing. Why is that? Considerations of CCS are eliminated with nuclear power. The solution should be apparent.