December 3, 2009

Cost of the Clean Transition? “Barely Noticeable”

by Tzeporah Berman

New Scientist has run the numbers on what it’s going to cost consumers to have a clean energy transition and the results are “barely noticeable” for folks in the UK. Coincides with similar studies in the US. No easy solution yet for flying but in almost all other areas the data shows that fears about destroying the economy are wild fearmongering:

a new modelling exercise conducted exclusively for this magazine suggests that these fears are largely unfounded. It projects that radical cuts to the UK’s emissions will cause barely noticeable increases in the price of food, drink and most other goods by 2050 (see the figures). Electricity and petrol costs will rise significantly, but with the right policies in place, say the modellers, this need not lead to big changes in our lifestyle.

“These results show that the global project to fight climate change is doable,” says Alex Bowen, a climate policy expert at the London School of Economics. “It’s not such a big ask as people are making out.”

Although it is impossible to precisely predict prices four decades from now, the exercise is one of the most detailed examinations yet of the impact of climate change policies on UK consumers. It provides a useful rough guide to our economic future.

Though its results speak directly to the UK consumer, previous research has come to similar conclusions for the US. In June, one study found that if the US were to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050, prices of most consumer goods would increase by less than 5 per cent (Energy Economics, DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2009.06.016). The findings are also consistent with analyses by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Washington DC. “Even cutting emissions by 80 per cent over four decades has a very small effect on consumers in most areas,” says Manik Roy of the Pew Center.

3 Responses so far...

  1. sindark says:

    Last year, McKinsey put out a report with some similar conclusions:

    http://www.sindark.com/2008/08/08/mckinsey-ranks-mitigation-technologies/

    There are a lot of low- and negative-cost options out there for GHG abatement. Governments just needs to overcome the barriers to adoption that exist.
    Key among those are the absence of a price on carbon, and the absence of mechanisms to encourage efficiency investments. The latter are especially necessary in situations where people think more about initial purchase price than about total cost of ownership.

  2. evelacey says:

    oops sorry I certainly didn’t edit my comment, but it’s just so frustrating, we should be leaders in this area, not a bunch of petroheads

  3. evelacey says:

    I’m wondering why there isn’t a organized demonstration at all our provincial legislatures in support of your Kyoto agreement to show the world that there are alot of Candadians who oppose the PM position?


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Not a Member? Click here to register.