IMF Advocates For Carbon Assessments
The IMF says a price on carbon is far more effective than government rules and regulations. It recommends a minimum cost of $75 per ton of carbon dioxide.
The IMF says a price on carbon is far more effective than government rules and regulations. It recommends a minimum cost of $75 per ton of carbon dioxide.
Some people have asked when the prices will stop falling. Their understanding is that the decline in price really is unpredictable, and they believe that no definitive answer can be made about what source of energy will be least expensive in the future. In some important ways, they are wrong. The declines are predictable, to a degree.
There’s a reasonable case for an identifiable $800 billion in costs for the nuclear portion of the Fukushima disaster. It’s not hard to see that a 40-year recovery period along with costs excluded from this could add 25% to that without breaking a sweat.
It’s clear that shifting to a renewable economy is viable, will have economic consequences for a subset of industries, and will be economically beneficial in multiple ways.
23 scientists have done a review of more than 3000 studies about climate change. Using this interdisciplinary approach, they predict many places on Earth will face up to 6 impacts from warming temperatures simultaneously by the end of this century, with potentially disastrous results.
Poor rural people, who have been without power and largely left out of economic calculations, are set to become a market force.
Laurence Fink, CEO of Black Rock, an investment firm with over $6 trillion in assets under management, has written a letter telling corporate CEOs they must be socially responsible or risk losing their social license to operate.
The world has an overheating problem, and prioritizing where the money gets spent to solve it is important. What are the choices and what’s the best short-term priority?
Virginia is about to receive approval for a nuclear plant that would cost 3-5 times what the equivalent wind and solar generation would cost. And it’s only 80 miles from Washington.
One of the key differences between Clinton and Trump was their stances on climate change. Clinton had a strong plan to continue the USA’s leadership position, and Trump disputes its existence. However, a Trump presidency isn’t a disaster for climate action globally or in the US. In fact, he might actually reduce US emissions, however unintentionally.