HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » The Green New Deal Is Che...

Mon Apr 6, 2020, 08:33 PM

The Green New Deal Is Cheap, Actually

Opposition to the Green New Deal is often framed as a matter of cost. President Trump’s re-election campaign blasted the “radical” plan, claiming it would “cost trillions of dollars, wreck our economy, and decimate millions of energy jobs.” But science shows that the costs of unchecked global temperature rise are far higher than transitioning to clean energy — which will, in fact, boost the economy. “Everybody thinks, ‘Oh, you have to spend a huge amount of money,’” says Mark Jacobson, a civil and environmental engineering professor at Stanford University. “Well, yeah, there’s an upfront cost, but this is something that pays itself back.”

The coronavirus crisis is changing the world’s comfort levels with massive expenditures. Fresh on the heels of a $2.2 trillion economic rescue package, President Trump has begun calling for another $2 trillion infrastructure package to create jobs. Across the political spectrum, politicians are anticipating that the economy will need something approximating a New Deal to spring back to life after the pandemic subsides. And climate advocates are making the case that we can use this disaster response to invest in renewable energy, to ward off an even more dangerous crisis down the line.

The price of not acting on climate change is staggering. The Paris climate accord aims to limit global temperature rise to 2 C. But a recent study in Nature shows that settling for that outcome — rather than a more ambitious limit of 1.5 C — will cost the world $36 trillion in climate damages. Global warming lowers global GDP, according to a 2019 paper co-authored by Cambridge University economists, who project that “a persistent rise in temperature, changes in precipitation patterns and … more volatile weather events” will slow productivity and investment, as well as damage human health. Holding warming to 2 C can limit the negative impact to one percent of global GDP per capita by 2100. But runaway climate change would crater that GDP figure by seven percent worldwide, and by 10.5 percent in the United States. “Climate change is pain,” Michael Mann, a top climate scientist, recently testified to Congress. “Anyone who tells you differently is selling something — most likely fossil fuels.”

The heart of the Green New Deal is a commitment to largely transition America to renewable energy by 2030, and wholly by 2050. That will require an upfront investment of $7.8 trillion, says Jacobson, who recently published a study in the journal One Earth that modeled the economic and climate impacts of moving to 100 percent clean energy in the U.S. These upfront costs, however, are a true investment. “It’s not just a doling out of government money with no return on it,” Jacobson says. By 2050, this transition avoids $3.1 trillion a year in climate damages. The green energy itself is also cheaper — saving $1.3 trillion a year for consumers over the fossil-fueled status quo. Ending combustion would also save 63,000 lives a year otherwise lost to air pollution. Most surprising: The study projects that a carbon-free economy increases energy employment. While 2.2 million fossil-fuel jobs would be lost, they would be replaced by 5.2 million permanent clean-energy jobs.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/why-the-green-new-deal-is-cheap-actually-965794/

4 replies, 466 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Green New Deal Is Cheap, Actually (Original post)
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2020 OP
guillaumeb Apr 2020 #1
KPN Apr 2020 #2
Champion Jack Apr 2020 #4
Finishline42 Apr 2020 #3

Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Mon Apr 6, 2020, 08:50 PM

1. The oil companies do not want to leave "stranded assets" in the ground.

They prioritize the next quarter's profit over the long term health of the planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Mon Apr 6, 2020, 09:07 PM

2. Question: Does the Democratic Party support the

Green New Deal? If it has no official position, what is the likelihood it will be incorporated into the 2020 platform?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 8, 2020, 11:40 AM

4. Good question, I know Bernie does, Haven't heard bidens ideas on this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)

Tue Apr 7, 2020, 10:05 AM

3. The problem is that when you price the GND as one item it becomes a hill too high to climb

My background is in manufacturing and solar and wind both benefit from economies of scale. The more you build the cheaper they get but it also creates innovation - just like flat screen TV's. So with that in mind - I think the area of concentration should be local gov't and schools. So instead of looking at one big price tag you have a lot of smaller ones. Here's an example >>>

The City of Cincinnati plans to construct the largest municipal PV project in the US in order to provide clean energy to all city facilities and serve residents through the Cincinnati Electric Aggregation Program. Once completed, the 100MW PV installation will reduce the region’s yearly carbon emissions rate by 158,000 tons.

How much is this going to cost the taxpayers of Cincinnati? Nada... because it is being done as a PPA (power purchase agreement). Cincinnati just made the commitment to buy the power from the installation. The next city to follow in their footsteps will pay less for the same capacity just as Cincinnati paid less than the one before them.

https://www.pv-tech.org/news/cincinnati-to-construct-us-largest-municipal-pv-project

I think local schools are great place to add solar mainly because you can wouldn't have to build it out in one big package. Plus utilities are typically the 2nd biggest cost item in a school system's budget behind labor. Schools don't move and you use donations to build out the capacity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread