Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
It would increase a further 7 per cent and 6 per cent respectively if nuclear is phased
out, and wind and solar are limited to 20 per cent of energy supply. And it would increase
a further 64 per cent if bioenergy fuels are not available, bringing a total of 8.6 per cent by
2100.
With emissions held at 550 parts per million (ppm), baseline costs are stated as 1.7
per cent. Hence, just as the costs of business-as-usual (Table 1) are small, so too are the
estimatedcostsentailedinradicallytransformingtheglobaleconomytoachievethesought
after abatement.
The implausibility of this, even with all the yet-to-be-developed technologies, is
magnified once the uncertainties of these technologies' performances are factored in. One
notable mirage technology is carbon capture and storage (CCS), a program bankrolled
in large part by the Australian Government which has recently considerably reduced the
funding allocation for the program.
Even if the envisaged new or improved technologies were to be costless, the IPCC's
estimated losses to the global economy from the forced shift away from fossil fuels are
greater than the costs of business-as-usual. Compounding this unfavourable deal is the
question of the reliability of the avoidance cost estimates. Economic assessments of minor
changestoeconomies orpolicyshockscanbemodelled withpassable degreesofaccuracy.
But the IPCC modelling attempts to estimate what amounts to a total reorganisation of
production, transport and living conditions and to project these a century into the future.
An example of the economic reorganisation entailed is quantified in Figure 3, which
shows over the coming fifteen years extraordinary improvements from unknown increases
inenergyefficiency,acollapseinspendinginfossilfuelextractionandamassivereduction
in power station investment.
These projections also cover the developing economies which are even more resistant
to suicidal economic policies than OECD countries.
