• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

IEA: A global green economy would cost 0.7% GDP ($1 Trillion) over 3 yrs

Orphia Nay

Penguilicious Spodmaster., Tagger
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
49,609
Location
Australia
Fact-check, please. Sounds good though. This is by the World Economic Forum reporting the International Energy Agency's Sustainable Recovery Plan.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/sustainable-green-recovery-economy-boost-coronavirus/

  • Targeted policies and investment in renewables and energy efficiency could boost the global economy by 1.1%, according to a report from the IEA.
  • Its Sustainable Recovery Plan would also save 9 million jobs a year and reduce energy-related greenhouse gas emissions by 4.5 billion tonnes.
  • Achieving this requires a global investment of $1 trillion annually over the next three years.

Let's stick to economics, business, and finance (and not climate) as much as possible.

Link to the IEA Report again:

https://www.iea.org/reports/sustainable-recovery
 
Hi.
I am not sure the term "green economy" is defined with enough precision the document linked.
1.1 trillion dollars is a lot of money for a plan which has not even been specified in detail
 
Fact-check, please. Sounds good though. This is by the World Economic Forum reporting the International Energy Agency's Sustainable Recovery Plan.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/sustainable-green-recovery-economy-boost-coronavirus/

  • Targeted policies and investment in renewables and energy efficiency could boost the global economy by 1.1%, according to a report from the IEA.
  • Its Sustainable Recovery Plan would also save 9 million jobs a year and reduce energy-related greenhouse gas emissions by 4.5 billion tonnes.
  • Achieving this requires a global investment of $1 trillion annually over the next three years.

Let's stick to economics, business, and finance (and not climate) as much as possible.

Link to the IEA Report again:

https://www.iea.org/reports/sustainable-recovery

I'm not buying their costs estimates. Rebuilding the US electrical grid, which would be a requirement, and may need to happen anyways, costs more than the 3 trillion dollar investment depending on who you ask.

I'm also not buying their transit projections either. Sure, high speed rail is sexy, but I don't think the demand is there. Also, for it to work, the world would have to get comfortable again with close personal contact. The California High Speed Rail Boondoggle is a nonstop to nowhere right now. Rising costs, and nobody buying into it. Except for Travis. California HSR was expected to cost 33 billion, give or take. It's tripled since then. So, yeah, you should probably triple the costs and halve the return.
 
The UN says economic recovery would take $1 trillion in their "Global Compact".

https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/never-waste-crisis-corporations-invest-‘recover-better’-covid-19

As in this thread, World Economic Forum and International Energy Agency say global economic AND CLIMATE recovery would take $1 trillion.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/sustainable-green-recovery-economy-boost-coronavirus/

The WEF announced The Great Reset to do this ( I posted in my Circular Economy thread).
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13129130#post13129130

Aren't we all working together on this? That would be great.

Or would it freak people out? :D
 
The UN says economic recovery would take $1 trillion in their "Global Compact".

https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/never-waste-crisis-corporations-invest-‘recover-better’-covid-19

It doesn't say that. It says the virus will "could cost the global economy more than $1 trillion" which is not the same as the recovery costing that much. The recovery could cost more. Basically, assuming nothing changed, from date X to Y, there was 1 trillion dollars that wasn't generated.

Again, 5 trillion to revamp the US Energy grid, per some sources. So while we can look at it now and say it's a good time to start given the state of the economy, not wasting a crisis and the article states, it's still not a single trillion dollar exercise.

Keep in mind we've not really figured out the social aspect of some of those changes being suggested. Mass transit, for example. If they keep on selling us on social distancing, then the idea of mass transit becomes automatically uncomfortable. You could build all the bullet trains in the world but getting people on them becomes a problem. Everyone gets a pod with a HEPA filter on it? That gets changed every trip?

If the leaders of the world are going to keep us being very risk adverse, advocating for massive change at the same time is off message.
 
It doesn't say that. It says the virus will "could cost the global economy more than $1 trillion" which is not the same as the recovery costing that much. The recovery could cost more. Basically, assuming nothing changed, from date X to Y, there was 1 trillion dollars that wasn't generated.

It says,

"155 multinational firms that have committed to science-based emissions reduction targets and urged Governments to focus COVID-19 economic stimulus packages, with recovery efforts geared towards reducing vulnerability to disasters, creating good jobs, lowering emissions and ensuring clean air."



Again, 5 trillion to revamp the US Energy grid, per some sources. So while we can look at it now and say it's a good time to start given the state of the economy, not wasting a crisis and the article states, it's still not a single trillion dollar exercise.

But that's not government expenditure.

It happens in a top-down / bottom-up way.

The focus is on decentralisation. Mini-grids mean households and communities form their own ways of supply.

The books may balance out even! :)



Keep in mind we've not really figured out the social aspect of some of those changes being suggested. Mass transit, for example. If they keep on selling us on social distancing, then the idea of mass transit becomes automatically uncomfortable.

Think wider.

Countries are putting great efforts and having much success with widening bike lanes, prioritising them, giving bonuses for riding to work, designing and redesigning cities to be healthier and more amenable to walking and riding. Greener spaces for walking through, streets with wider footpaths, this sort of thing the US is behind in in many places.
 
It says,

"155 multinational firms that have committed to science-based emissions reduction targets and urged Governments to focus COVID-19 economic stimulus packages, with recovery efforts geared towards reducing vulnerability to disasters, creating good jobs, lowering emissions and ensuring clean air."

Not listed - an amount of money.

The focus is on decentralisation. Mini-grids mean households and communities form their own ways of supply.

Decentralization doesn't work when talking about renewables. You need to draw power from Texas if California is under a storm, as an example. Since they were also talking nuclear power, that really doesn't work in mini grids.

They were talking mini-grids in developing countries. Not 1st world solutions.


Countries are putting great efforts and having much success with widening bike lanes, prioritising them, giving bonuses for riding to work, designing and redesigning cities to be healthier and more amenable to walking and riding. Greener spaces for walking through, streets with wider footpaths, this sort of thing the US is behind in in many places.

That is because the US is a car culture. Cities were built with this understanding. Sure you could try to change it. But wouldn't it be smarter, easier and more efficient to work with it?

I used to use public transit when I lived in the California Bay Area. It was the cheapest (since my employer picked up the tab) way to get into work. It was slower, by far. Then I picked up and moved to Austin TX. For kicks, I looked at how I would get to work, taking mass transit. It would have turned a 20 minute car ride into a 2 hour bus trip. I also considered riding a bike into the office. Then it was Summer. Bad idea. I could easily tolerate the 80ish morning rides. It was the 100ish rides home that would have been discouraging. And the first ice storm would have put a lid on the idea in the winter.

I won't get into the cities failed attempt at mass transit. Should be as simple as looking at where people are and where they want to go, but they find a way to screw that up.
 
Decentralization doesn't work when talking about renewables. You need to draw power from Texas if California is under a storm, as an example. Since they were also talking nuclear power, that really doesn't work in mini grids.
No, this is the first thing that has got me interested. I want decentralised nuclear power. The preppers would probably come on board.

$1T will do half a percent of nothing to get us to zero carbon by 2030 or what ever the goal is.
 
Last edited:
In Jeremy Riffkin's The Green New Deal, he explains energy decentralisation in great depth.

The Internet of Things and The Things Network are ways it's being implemented.

It's grids connected to grids.
 
Not listed - an amount of money.

https://www.iea.org/reports/sustainable-recovery

"Our Sustainable Recovery Plan shows it is possible to simultaneously spur economic growth, create millions of jobs and put emissions into structural decline. Through detailed assessments of more than 30 specific energy policy measures to be carried out over the next three years, this report considers the circumstances of individual countries as well as existing pipelines of energy projects and current market conditions. Achieving the results outlined below would require global investment of about USD 1 trillion annually over the next three years. This represents about 0.7% of global GDP."

Thanks for the fact check, it's annually over 3 years.


Decentralization doesn't work when talking about renewables. You need to draw power from Texas if California is under a storm, as an example. Since they were also talking nuclear power, that really doesn't work in mini grids.

They were talking mini-grids in developing countries. Not 1st world solutions.




That is because the US is a car culture. Cities were built with this understanding. Sure you could try to change it. But wouldn't it be smarter, easier and more efficient to work with it?

I used to use public transit when I lived in the California Bay Area. It was the cheapest (since my employer picked up the tab) way to get into work. It was slower, by far. Then I picked up and moved to Austin TX. For kicks, I looked at how I would get to work, taking mass transit. It would have turned a 20 minute car ride into a 2 hour bus trip. I also considered riding a bike into the office. Then it was Summer. Bad idea. I could easily tolerate the 80ish morning rides. It was the 100ish rides home that would have been discouraging. And the first ice storm would have put a lid on the idea in the winter.

I won't get into the cities failed attempt at mass transit. Should be as simple as looking at where people are and where they want to go, but they find a way to screw that up.

Or you can look at it more positively and see that younger people are designing new ways of doing things and can see these problems aren't good to perpetuate.

I've never got my licence and often take 5 hour bus trips that take 3 hours by car.
 
Last edited:
I used to use public transit when I lived in the California Bay Area. It was the cheapest (since my employer picked up the tab) way to get into work. It was slower, by far. Then I picked up and moved to Austin TX. For kicks, I looked at how I would get to work, taking mass transit. It would have turned a 20 minute car ride into a 2 hour bus trip. I also considered riding a bike into the office. Then it was Summer. Bad idea. I could easily tolerate the 80ish morning rides. It was the 100ish rides home that would have been discouraging. And the first ice storm would have put a lid on the idea in the winter.

I loved the public transit in the South Bay Area. Between Caltrain, VTA Light Rail, and the bus network I could get just about anywhere I needed for business or pleasure, as long as I had time. And since I love to sit and read, I always had time, at least for my regular commutes.

Then I moved to San Diego. What used to be a one-hour train ride where I was free to read a book, do homework, or catch up on my sleep became a one hour hellscape of stop and go traffic. There were simply no buses that connected all the spread out suburbs and satellite towns in anything like reasonable time frames.

When I moved out of Southern Califiornia, my overriding requirement was a location near a city center that was locally walkable and regionally well supported by public transit.
 
Or you can look at it more positively and see that younger people are designing new ways of doing things and can see these problems aren't good to perpetuate.

I've never got my licence and often take 5 hour bus trips that take 3 hours by car.

Younger generations are going to be going at it for centuries, redesigning all the cities and suburbs that are spread out around the personal automobile paradigm. Doing it suddenly and cheaply is going to be the cure worse than the disease. Hopefully younger generations will mature a bit before embarking on such programs.
 
Younger generations are going to be going at it for centuries, redesigning all the cities and suburbs that are spread out around the personal automobile paradigm. Doing it suddenly and cheaply is going to be the cure worse than the disease. Hopefully younger generations will mature a bit before embarking on such programs.
The Ford Model T was introduced in 1908, just 112 years ago. It took a lot less than a century for cities and suburbs to develop around the motor car. With modern technology it will take even less time to change. The only thing holding us back is lack of vision.

Leftus said:
Decentralization doesn't work when talking about renewables. You need to draw power from Texas if California is under a storm, as an example. Since they were also talking nuclear power, that really doesn't work in mini grids...

the US is a car culture... I won't get into the cities failed attempt at mass transit. Should be as simple as looking at where people are and where they want to go, but they find a way to screw that up.
So much negativity!

It's not that we can't change - we just don't want to. So we say it can't be done, or it's not in our 'culture', or we will just screw it up. But we are getting change whether we like it or not. You can either embrace it and be part of a better world, or fight it and be miserable.
 
https://www.iea.org/reports/sustainable-recovery

"Our Sustainable Recovery Plan shows it is possible to simultaneously spur economic growth, create millions of jobs and put emissions into structural decline. Through detailed assessments of more than 30 specific energy policy measures to be carried out over the next three years, this report considers the circumstances of individual countries as well as existing pipelines of energy projects and current market conditions. Achieving the results outlined below would require global investment of about USD 1 trillion annually over the next three years. This represents about 0.7% of global GDP."

Thanks for the fact check, it's annually over 3 years.

I'm still a bit skeptical. Whose money? Mine? Yours? The undefined "they?" The increases are in third world areas, which by definition do need some sort of development. But how much of the "global" GDP are they pitching in? How do I, joe taxpayer here in texas get a return on my investment?

Or you can look at it more positively and see that younger people are designing new ways of doing things and can see these problems aren't good to perpetuate.

I've never got my licence and often take 5 hour bus trips that take 3 hours by car.

They can design new ways to do things until the cows come home. They still have to work within the parameters of how things are. There is another thread on this sub forum rife with changes that ignore reality.

My point is, public transportation, especially here in the USA is an after thought. Even if you designed, and redesigned cities for walks, bikes and whatnots, the convince of the personal automobile is a hurdle not even addressed. Most of the plans I've seen locally are more focused on making it more inconvenient for cars rather than better for everyone else. For example, there was a local apartment complex that got delayed because they didn't have a parking spot for every apartment. The theory was it was downtown and kids today don't drive so why would they park? I guess you could find enough people, like you, for this to be appealing. But I like it out here on the edge of town. I don't like downtown living, or downtown driving. I don't tolerate crowds well. Outside of the time it took, riding mass transit during rush hour was hell on my nerves. It's not for me. And that also has to be taken into account, as much as I have to accept people not wanting to live like me.
 
So much negativity!

It's not that we can't change - we just don't want to. So we say it can't be done, or it's not in our 'culture', or we will just screw it up. But we are getting change whether we like it or not. You can either embrace it and be part of a better world, or fight it and be miserable.

I'm going to tell you right now, were I forced to live in a central hub, my nerves would not survive. My hypertension alone would put me in an early grave.

It's not a better world for me.


What you call negativity, I call reality. And I'm not willing to go Pollyanna because something fits a world I want to see. Major cities can't deconstruct the grid some everyone in, say, an HOA has their own grid. I really don't want to see the abuses the average HOA puts on say lawns that they would put on electrical use.
 
Then I moved to San Diego. What used to be a one-hour train ride where I was free to read a book, do homework, or catch up on my sleep became a one hour hellscape of stop and go traffic. There were simply no buses that connected all the spread out suburbs and satellite towns in anything like reasonable time frames.

A few years ago, I went to my Cousins home somewhere in the imperial valley for Thanksgiving. Decided to go to the Zoo. It was beautiful. The weather, the zoo itself, great experience. Then drove back. Week of Thanksgiving, and it's bumper to bumper at maybe a mile an hour. Any idea of finding a gig there and moving died that day.

When I moved to Austin, one thing I told the relocation guy was that I didn't want to be more than 30 minutes in rush hour door to door from house to office. When it was 20 in almost no traffic as I was heading east and west in a north to south rush, I felt like I was given more time, To be home in the same hour as I left? Living the dream. I felt like I was given more hours in the day. I got home BEFORE football was on. Now I work from home 4 out of 5 days. But it's still a 30 minute commute when forced to go in.
 
No, this is the first thing that has got me interested. I want decentralised nuclear power. The preppers would probably come on board.

Why? Let's say you've got your nukes running and supplying 60% of the base load. When solar is having a gangbuster day, what are you going to do with the excess power? You can't just roll up and down nukes. When you can put that power on the grid and let someone who isn't have a good day soak it up, that is efficiency. If everyone was on their own grid, you can't move it.

While a bunch of mini-grids would serve a strategic goal of making it harder to bring down half the nation with one attack, it would waste a good portion of power generation. This also assumes that every location is equally viable for clean generation. This is not likely to be true.
 
This sounds like the sort of thing that looks good on paper, but that no real-world government would be able to implement without screwing it up.

I agree. As long as conservatives have some kind of power in government, any government program will be screwed up, over budget, and ultimately held up as an example that government doesn't work. Sabotage isn't part of this study, but it should be.
 
I agree. As long as conservatives have some kind of power in government, any government program will be screwed up, over budget, and ultimately held up as an example that government doesn't work. Sabotage isn't part of this study, but it should be.

Conservatism is influential in the Netherlands, and they have been working on a Circular Economy for a number of years.

https://www.government.nl/topics/circular-economy

The policy is to be 50% circular by 2030, and 100% circular by 2050.

https://www.government.nl/documents...a-circular-economy-in-the-netherlands-by-2050
 
Why? Let's say you've got your nukes running and supplying 60% of the base load. When solar is having a gangbuster day, what are you going to do with the excess power? You can't just roll up and down nukes. When you can put that power on the grid and let someone who isn't have a good day soak it up, that is efficiency. If everyone was on their own grid, you can't move it.
I was joking about the nukes and preppers. Having said that, if we are spitballing this... a "green" solution is going to be vastly inefficient. Either you have to be having vast local oversupply, or you have to have vast battery storage, or you have to be moving power over vast distances.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom