Climate inaction could cost world USD178 trillion: Deloitte

[NNadir]

This article is here: Climate inaction could cost world USD178 trillion: Deloitte

Excerpt:

Climate change - if left unchecked - could cost the global economy USD178 trillion over the next 50 years, according to a new report from Deloitte. But if the world acts now to rapidly achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century, the transformation of the economy would set the world up for stronger economic growth by 2070.

he Global Turning Point Report from the recently established Deloitte Center for Sustainable Progress (DCSP) was released during the World Economic Forum's annual meeting, which is taking place in Davos, Switzerland from 22-26 May. Based on research conducted by the Deloitte Economics Institute, the report analyses 15 geographies in Asia Pacific, Europe, and the Americas.

If global warming reaches around 3°C toward the century's end, the toll on human lives could be significant - disproportionately impacting the most vulnerable and leading to loss of productivity and employment, food and water scarcity, worsening health and well-being, and ushering in an overall lower standard of living globally, Deloitte said. But if the world acts now to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century, the transformation could increase the global economy by USD43 trillion - a boost to global GDP of 3.8% - in 2070 "compared to a climate damaged baseline".

"The time for debate is over. We need swift, bold and widespread action now - across all sectors," Deloitte Global CEO Punit Renjen said. "Will this require a significant investment from the global business community, from governments, from the non-profit sector? Yes. But inaction is a far costlier choice … what we have before us is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to re-orient the global economy and create more sustainable, resilient, and equitable long-term growth. In my mind the question is not why we should make this investment, it's how can we not?"

With global coordination and rapid action, the world can still achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the report says. This will require extensive coordination and global collaboration, with governments needing to collaborate closely with the financial services and technology sectors. During the initial stages, the cost of upfront investments in decarbonisation coupled with the already locked-in damages from climate change would temporarily lower economic activity compared with the current emissions-intensive path, but as the transition progresses a turning point would be reached where the economic benefits of avoided climate damage and the emergence of new sources of growth and job creation start to outweigh the costs.

"It's important that the global economy evolves to meet the challenges of climate change," Pradeep Philip of the Deloitte Economics Institute said. "Our analysis shows that a low-carbon future is not only a societal imperative but an economic one...

This would be a good time for all kinds of bourgeois assholes to pipe in that "Nuclear Energy is too expensive."

The problem with building nuclear reactors is that every reactor built today is designed to operate for well more than half a century. They are thus gifts to future generations, but we are disinterested in making such gifts.

The future will not forgive us, nor should it.

[lapfog_1]

1. more likely it will cost us (the world) around 4 billion people

resource wars... water, places to live, energy... FOOD

[NNadir]

2. Like the kids used to say, "Are we there yet?" I think maybe we're very close. n/t.

[lapfog_1]

3. I am unlikely to be alive to see the slow moving disaster become

so real that it dwarfs all other news... 10s or 100s of thousands dying almost every day. even in the first world. Not every year, every damn day.

but food shortages may make this happen in the next 10 to 20 years.

Resource wars will become more fierce and more frequent.

People will need to depopulate the middle east and most of northern africa, australia, and possibly the american southwest.

no water... and temps too high to sustain life.

[hunter]

5. The Southeast U.S.A. may be in greater danger than the Southwest.

It's pretty easy to imagine a hurricane that knocks out the power in the Southeast followed by deadly wet-bulb temps.

Logistically it's a lot easier to deliver drinking water than it is to deliver fuel and generators to keep the air conditioners going.

[John ONeill]

4. Reactor longevity

'..every reactor built today is designed to operate for well more than half a century'
A Danish startup wants to build mini reactors based on the dimensions of a standard 40 foot shipping container, with the premise that they'd be super fast and flexible to build, transport, and install. The idea is that small, fast and cheap is easier to certify if you're not claiming the thing will last forever (like the US Navy reactors, which last the thirty year life of the submarine they're built into, with no need for refuelling.) Copenhagen Atomics is proposing a heavy water moderated, 50 MW(thermal), 700C heat source, with a design life of 3-5 years. https://aris.iaea.org/Publications/SMR-Book_2018.pdf
Meantime, gigawatt-scale PWRs are doing all the heavy lifting (plus a few Candus).

[NNadir]

6. Recently I watched a discussion put out by the ANS featuring a Terrapower engineer...

...where he made the point that a feature of future reactors would be to isolate the nuclear island from the rest of the system.

I've been thinking of a similar concept for a number of years, with some differences. I do conceive of printable "burn-through" cores, a variant of Sekimoto's "Candle" concept with annular active critical zones, but I believe that the non-nuclear island should be designed to be more or less eternal with easily interchangeable parts to allow for flexibility.

I can see a situation in which the basic core might be switched out every decade with the other parts of the system remaining intact.

In this case, I see electricity as more or less a side product to be produced on an "as needed" basis, with chemical heat processing being the main product, chiefly the production of syngas. The goal would be to produce maximal exergy.

Another important product would be clean water; an increasingly urgent need. Toward this end I've become fascinated with supercritical states.

Ten years ago I was a big reactor kind of guy, more recently, not so much.

I don't know about this Danish scheme. Anything that might make them stop drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea is worth considering. Their wind industry is just garbage waiting to happen. Perhaps since they've been relying on systems that are transitory, a six year reactor is a good idea for them. I'm not so sure it's a good idea, but the worst nuclear plant is superior to the best form of any other kind of primary energy.