Post by sumaiyajannt on Feb 24, 2024 23:36:27 GMT -5
According to Eco-Business, climate policy debates often focus on who will pay the cost of achieving a zero-carbon economy, with particular attention to industrial sectors such as steel and cement. But global costs are surprisingly low, and our greatest challenge lies in the food system, the main ally of climate change, not in industrial products. What is happening regarding gas emissions? The latest report from the UK Climate Change Commission, for example, shows that reducing the UK's greenhouse gas emissions to net zero in 2050 would only reduce British GDP by 0.5%. The Energy Transition Commission's "Making Mission Possible" report estimates a similar total cost of 0.5% of global GDP to reduce emissions from the world's energy, construction, industrial and transport systems to zero by mid-century. Main ally of climate change These estimates are far below those made by older studies. The Stern Report on the Economics of Climate Change, published in , suggested costs of between and of GDP to achieve just an 80% reduction in emissions.
This positive change reflects the spectacular and unforeseen decrease in the costs of the main technologies: The cost of onshore wind Phone Number List electricity has fallen by 60% in just ten years. That of photovoltaic solar cells more than 80%. The batteries . These costs are now so low that the use of zero-carbon products and services in many sectors will benefit consumers. For example, the future "total system costs" of running near-zero-carbon electricity systems - including all the storage and flexibility needed with unpredictable sources such as wind and solar - will often be lower than current systems based on fossil fuels. And in ten years, consumers around the world will be better off buying electric cars, paying somewhat less for the vehicles and much less for the electricity that powers them than for the diesel and gasoline they buy today. Main ally of climate change Speaking of decarbonization… However, decarbonization is likely to come at a significant cost in some hard-to-remove sectors, such as steel, cement and shipping. Well before , zero-carbon steel could be produced using hydrogen as a reducing agent instead of coking coal, or by adding carbon capture and storage to traditional blast furnaces. But doing so could increase costs by , or about $per ton of steel.
Therefore, it is essential to focus research and development and venture capital investment on innovative technologies that can reduce this premium. But it is also important to recognize that even if the “green premium” persists, the cost of decarbonizing these sectors will be so small that consumers will barely notice it. How much steel have you bought? Ask yourself how much steel you bought last year. Unless you're a purchasing manager, the answer is probably none at all. Figures from the World Steel Association indicate that "true steel use per capita" is -kilograms (661-882 pounds) annually in Europe and the United States. Therefore, if the price of steel rose by $per ton, consumers would be hurt by only $30-40. Consumers indirectly buy the steel incorporated in the products and services they consume: in cars, in washing machines or in the health services provided in a hospital built with steel. That trivial cost reflects the crucial difference between the green premium for intermediate goods and the “green consumer premium” for final products. A steel price increase of even 25% would add less than 1% to the price of cars. Shipping rates could increase by 50%, but that would increase the price of imported clothing or food by an equally trivial amount. However, rising costs of intermediate products continue to pose a major policy challenge. A steel company that commits to a zero-carbon goal will find itself at a crushing disadvantage if its competitors do not do so.
This positive change reflects the spectacular and unforeseen decrease in the costs of the main technologies: The cost of onshore wind Phone Number List electricity has fallen by 60% in just ten years. That of photovoltaic solar cells more than 80%. The batteries . These costs are now so low that the use of zero-carbon products and services in many sectors will benefit consumers. For example, the future "total system costs" of running near-zero-carbon electricity systems - including all the storage and flexibility needed with unpredictable sources such as wind and solar - will often be lower than current systems based on fossil fuels. And in ten years, consumers around the world will be better off buying electric cars, paying somewhat less for the vehicles and much less for the electricity that powers them than for the diesel and gasoline they buy today. Main ally of climate change Speaking of decarbonization… However, decarbonization is likely to come at a significant cost in some hard-to-remove sectors, such as steel, cement and shipping. Well before , zero-carbon steel could be produced using hydrogen as a reducing agent instead of coking coal, or by adding carbon capture and storage to traditional blast furnaces. But doing so could increase costs by , or about $per ton of steel.
Therefore, it is essential to focus research and development and venture capital investment on innovative technologies that can reduce this premium. But it is also important to recognize that even if the “green premium” persists, the cost of decarbonizing these sectors will be so small that consumers will barely notice it. How much steel have you bought? Ask yourself how much steel you bought last year. Unless you're a purchasing manager, the answer is probably none at all. Figures from the World Steel Association indicate that "true steel use per capita" is -kilograms (661-882 pounds) annually in Europe and the United States. Therefore, if the price of steel rose by $per ton, consumers would be hurt by only $30-40. Consumers indirectly buy the steel incorporated in the products and services they consume: in cars, in washing machines or in the health services provided in a hospital built with steel. That trivial cost reflects the crucial difference between the green premium for intermediate goods and the “green consumer premium” for final products. A steel price increase of even 25% would add less than 1% to the price of cars. Shipping rates could increase by 50%, but that would increase the price of imported clothing or food by an equally trivial amount. However, rising costs of intermediate products continue to pose a major policy challenge. A steel company that commits to a zero-carbon goal will find itself at a crushing disadvantage if its competitors do not do so.