A new report has revealed that the government might need to spend $13 trillion through 2030 on climate change efforts, with much of the expenditure going toward issues such as delays in policy development and implementation.
According to a report released by the International Energy Agency (IEA), using low-carbon sources of energy instead of fossil fuels will cost a staggering $44 trillion between now and 2050. But huge savings from reduced consumption of fossil fuel can reportedly be brought by switching to low-carbon technologies coupled with enhanced efficiency such as solar power technology. This would mean that the costs of switching energy sources and consumption will be paid for in the earned fuel savings between this day and 2050.
These cost estimates are based on planned scenarios set by the researchers. They believe that if technologies work as planned, people will better understand the cost and savings of deviating from fossil fuel consumption.
One of the biggest factors that should be considered is the length of time needed to start reducing emissions. In 2012, the IEA estimated the cost to be $36 trillion when switching to low-carbon energy that is $8 trillion less than this year's estimate. Factors that have contributed to the increase the time intervened, increased emission rates and higher atmospheric greenhouse-gas levels.
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that the effort to reach stabilized levels of greenhouse-gas emissions would require $13 trillion worth of investment through 2030. They also reported that holding off the move to reduce emissions would result in a 40 percent increase in costs. Other factors than can contribute to increasing costs would include low and unorganized collaboration between countries and failed technology.
However, Robert Pindyck, a professor of economics and finance at MIT, believes that using the cost-benefit analysis in coming up with the decisions on climate change is destined to fail since both costs and benefits are just mere speculations.
"All we can do is speculate. We don't really know the costs. We don't really know the benefits," Prof. Pindyck said to MIT Technology Review.
