Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Google It - Clean Energy is Good for the Economy

Posted on 2 July 2011 by dana1981

Google recently released a report detailing the results of their study modeling the impact of breakthroughs in key energy sectors: clean power, energy storage, electric vehicles, and natural gas, along with combinations of clean energy policies. 

In order to perform these economic assessments, Google used a carbon economics tool created by McKinsey:

"This analysis was prepared by Google.org using McKinsey & Company's US Low Carbon Economics Tool, which is a neutral, analytic set of interlinked models that estimates potential economic implications of various policies using assumptions defined by Google.org"

In true Google fashion, they also put together a very useful and easy to navigate website detailing the key results of the study, and highlighting some of the key figures in the report.  For example:

Google GDP Figure

In this figure, "BT" is a breakthrough, which Google defines as green technologies meeting a certain cost/performance level.  You can read about the various "BTs" here.  "BAU" is business as usual.  The green line depicts a scenario in which we price carbon emissions from the power sector at $30 per ton (which is used to fund a cut in corporate and individual income tax rates), and in which we invest strongly in green technology.  The blue line depicts green tech investment without a carbon price.  The purple line depicts a scenario in which we delay strong investment in green tech for 5 years.  The orange and red area shows the difference in US gross domestic product (GDP) between the green and purple scenarios: we lose a total of $2.3 to 3.2 trillion in benefits over the next 40 years.

Some other key findings in the report:

"Our modeling indicates that, when compared to BAU in 2030, aggressive energy innovation alone could have enormous potential to simultaneously:

  • Grow the US economy by over $155 billion in GDP/year ($244 billion with Clean Policy)
  • Create over 1.1 million new net jobs (1.9 million with Clean Policy)
  • Save US consumers over $942/household/year ($995 with Clean Policy)
  • Reduce US oil consumption by over 1.1 billion barrels/year
  • Reduce US total greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 13% (21% with Clean Policy)

By 2050, innovation in the modeled technologies alone reduced GHG emissions 55% and 63% when combined with policy, while continuing positive economic and job growth. This analysis indicates that aggressive clean energy innovation could simultaneously help address the US’ major long-term economic, environmental, and security goals."

In short, investing in green tech alone is highly beneficial for the economy and employment, and even moreso if 'Clean Policy' and/or a price on carbon emissions are implemented.  Google defines what they mean by 'Clean Policy':

"a collection of existing or proposed federal policies including a Clean Energy Standard (25% [carbon capture and storage], renewables, and new nuclear by 2030), Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS), increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), increased EPA regulations on coal, extended Investment and Production Tax Credits, and a Loan Guarantee credit facility capped at $15 billion per year."

Interestingly, contrary to popular opinion, the Google study finds increased EPA regulations economically beneficial.  Also contrary to certain public opinion, in addition to increasing GDP, and reducing oil consumption and CO2 emissions, investing in green tech and implementing Clean Policy and/or carbon pricing will lead to a decrease in household energy bills:

Fig 4

The results are even better when a price on carbon emissions is implemented, which supports our arguments that CO2 limits are good for the economy:

Fig 10

The bulk of the reduction in energy bills (74%, or $699 per year on average) is attributed to the transition to electric vehicles (electricity bills go up, but fuel costs decrease by substantially more).  The transition to electric vehicles also accounts for half of the projected job creation.  As noted in the first figure above, Google emphasizes that "speed matters":

"In our model, a mere five year delay in starting aggressive cost reduction curves could cost the economy an aggregate $2.3–3.2 trillion in unrealized GDP gains, 1.2–1.4 million net jobs and 8-28 gigatons of potential avoided CO2 emissions by 2050"

The lesson to be learned here is that investment in green tech, clean policy, and carbon pricing are beneficial to the economy.  Delaying implementation of these mechanism could potentially cost us a lot of money.  The funds for investment in green technology have to come from somewhere, and a carbon emissions price can provide those funds, as has happened in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

As Google puts it:

"The benefits are clear, so let’s go!"

For further details on this report click the links above.  Or Google it!

NOTE: the results of this study have been added to the rebuttal to "CO2 limits will harm the economy"

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 53 out of 53:

  1. Good to see Cornwall (in the UK) doing its bit to provide clean energy (with more coming soon), while re-using an old tin mine : Solar park goes live Every little helps...
    0 0
  2. '15mpg?' '24mpg'? Bwahahahaha I thought USAns were supposed to be the best of the best of the best. Come on, get yer act together! :)
    0 0
  3. States with lower carbon emissions tend to have higher median incomes.

    That may be because higher tech energy strategies create a lot of good jobs.  It may be because wealthier states can afford to invest in the future more.  And it may be external factors that cause both, such as urbanization.  Realistically, it is probably a mix of the three.  But, the fact is, states that are better for the climate are also doing better economically.

    0 0

Prev  1  2  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us