IEA Estimates Each Year's Delay On Aggressive Climate Pact = $500 Billion

[hatrack]

LONDON (Reuters) - The world will have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delays implementing a major assault on global warming, the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday.

At United Nations climate talks in Barcelona last week negotiators from developed countries said the world would need an extra six to 12 months to agree a legally binding, global deal to cut carbon emissions beyond a planned December deadline.

The IEA, energy adviser to 28 industrialized countries, said the world must act urgently to put greenhouse gases on a track to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Every year's delay beyond 2010 would add another $500 billion to the extra investment of $10,500 billion needed from 2010-2030 to curb carbon emissions, for example to improve energy efficiency and boost low-carbon renewable energy. "Much more needs to be done to get anywhere near an emissions path consistent with ... limiting the rise in global temperature to 2 degrees," said the IEA's 2009 World Energy Outlook. "Countries attending the U.N. climate conference must not lose sight of this."

EDIT

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5A91U420091110

[Willson1945]

1. Can we actually control the earth's environment?

I understand the concern of the IEA and the need for reducing our "global footprint"... it makes good sense to be good stewards... but I have yet to see in an all-inclusive climate model that reducing our output, even to zero... will have any significant impact in raising or lowering temperatures around the globe. That is because an all-inclusive model doesn't exist yet... you could fit all we really know for sure about the environment on the head of the proverbial pin.

So many other factors beyond our control at this point, changes in the sun, weakening of the earth's magnetic field, volcanic activity, the cooling of the molten core of our planet, may be overwhelming human factors in climate change.

This provides ammunition for those who simply want to brand well-meaning global warming devotees as a bunch of "Chicken-Littles".

[hatrack]

2. Thank you for your concern about our concern, I'm touched.

Thank you as well, for the argument from ignorance fallacy - as well as some familiar straw men with elegant comb-overs.

[pscot]

3. If it starts costing real money

we might get some action. Then again, maybe not.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. Unfortunately, the people left holding the bill...

...won't be the people holding the money. That you and I will suddenly have to pay through the nose for new generation, efficiency, transport infrastructure, agricultural practices and other mitigation means precisely dick down on Wall St.

[excess_3]

4. in the past, I was told it would be free

free solar
free wind
free geothermal
free free free
.........................

I am still waiting,
for Al Gore,
to lift a finger,
or spend a penny of his own money,
to provide green electricity to the grid
for the same price we pay now

[Nihil]

6. You lie.

When did Al Gore (or anyone else for that matter) tell you that
you'd get "free solar, free wind, free geothermal, free free free"?

If *you* wish to pay (i.e., capital outlay) for sufficient "green"
generating capacity (solar, wind, geothermal, whatever combination)
for *your* personal requirements then *you* will become "free" from
ongoing generation costs above & beyond those required for the
maintenance of *your* equipment.

This does not equate to "free" in the manner that your post implies.

Similarly, there has never been (to my knowledge anyway) any statement
by any rich person (Al Gore or otherwise) that they will spend *their*
money to directly subsidise *you* with free energy.

There have been many projects sponsored by many people that have
yielded technology, knowledge and other advantages that are today
being used to benefit *you* but you seem to be ignoring that aspect
of life altogether.

I submit that you are repeatedly (and knowingly) peddling bullshit
in an attempt to deflect the understanding of progress made already.
That is not only blatantly dishonest but proof of your deliberately
disruptive existence on this board.

[excess_3]

7. I would settle for, no additional cost ...

or how about, a guaranteed limit to the increase
the grennies won't even offer that.

Al Gore wants you to be compelled to turn
(at some time in the future) something off,
before you have something else to turn on.
Price is no object to Al Gore, as long as someone else is paying.

meanwhile, politicians are feasting on endangered species,
oceans are being overfished to the point of uselessness,
and farmland is being paved at the same time that
otherwise livable cities are being emptied
because they are in the wrong place.
Gore's solution to this...
buy Al Gore carbon offsets

[Nihil]

8. You got five lines more or less right:

> meanwhile, politicians are feasting on endangered species,
> oceans are being overfished to the point of uselessness,
> and farmland is being paved at the same time that
> otherwise livable cities are being emptied
> because they are in the wrong place.

The first two are spot on; the remaining three are more questionable.

The rest of your post however is not worthy of comment.

[excess_3]

9. cities, let me clarify

perfectly good northeast US cities are being depopulated,
because of job loss and other reasons,
resulting in,

suburban sprawl,
farmland loss, etc,
somewhere else.