“Decarbonization efforts don’t always make financial sense.”
March 15, 2025 10:21 AM Subscribe
Climate action is becoming less of a priority around the world. Single link CBC.
Worrying about climate change feels like a luxury now, even if it's not.
posted by Lemkin at 11:14 AM on March 15 [14 favorites]
posted by Lemkin at 11:14 AM on March 15 [14 favorites]
To be a little snarky, it's so very CBC to be years behind the trend. The peak of caring about the climate was definitely pre-pandemic. It's been slowly getting worse since then. Trump certainly isn't helping, but it's not like the vibe shifted overnight on climate.
posted by ssg at 11:35 AM on March 15 [8 favorites]
posted by ssg at 11:35 AM on March 15 [8 favorites]
it's not like the vibe shifted overnight on climate
I recently read Overshoot by Andreas Malm and Win Carton, and the retreat from climate action and resurgence of the fossil fuel industry is a major theme. The book was written in 2023.
It has felt like concern about climate change peaked in 2019 and ... the news cycle moved on and we have found new things to occupy our anxieties.
posted by selenized at 12:12 PM on March 15 [3 favorites]
I recently read Overshoot by Andreas Malm and Win Carton, and the retreat from climate action and resurgence of the fossil fuel industry is a major theme. The book was written in 2023.
It has felt like concern about climate change peaked in 2019 and ... the news cycle moved on and we have found new things to occupy our anxieties.
posted by selenized at 12:12 PM on March 15 [3 favorites]
Whatever. The UK has dropped their emissions to levels not seen since 1872. Electric vehicles are up by 39%, and that will save British drivers £1.7bn in lower fuel costs.
What suddenly matters is energy sovereignty, coz we've realised the danger of having your economy depend upon regular shipments of oil and gas from nations that we might find ourselves at war with.
Low carbon energy is local energy. No other nation can blackmail you with the threat of turning off the sun or wind.
As for cost, I respectfully disagree and can point to a host of studies making the opposite case to that linked study.
What's different for renewable power is that the costs depend more upon initial investment than they do on running costs like having to keep buying fuel. Who bears those initial costs and how much they are is a government decision. If a nation wants a new solar farm, there are many different ways to finance that. They can take a purely private route, where the farm is run by a company, that company has to raise private money, and pay the debt back from income from electricity users. Or they can take a public route, where the farm is built using public debt and paid back by general taxation. (Or a mix of these models.)
Here's the thing - governments can get debt at a much lower interest rate than private companies. In 2022 our local power company issued green bonds to raise money for more renewables at 5.8% whereas our long-term govt bonds at the time were 2.75%.
The cost of renewables is a political decision as much as it is an economic decision. And if investment in renewables keeps us from war then that's a good investment. If that continues to solve climate change, then that's an equivalently valid long term goal.
posted by happyinmotion at 12:16 PM on March 15 [35 favorites]
What suddenly matters is energy sovereignty, coz we've realised the danger of having your economy depend upon regular shipments of oil and gas from nations that we might find ourselves at war with.
Low carbon energy is local energy. No other nation can blackmail you with the threat of turning off the sun or wind.
As for cost, I respectfully disagree and can point to a host of studies making the opposite case to that linked study.
What's different for renewable power is that the costs depend more upon initial investment than they do on running costs like having to keep buying fuel. Who bears those initial costs and how much they are is a government decision. If a nation wants a new solar farm, there are many different ways to finance that. They can take a purely private route, where the farm is run by a company, that company has to raise private money, and pay the debt back from income from electricity users. Or they can take a public route, where the farm is built using public debt and paid back by general taxation. (Or a mix of these models.)
Here's the thing - governments can get debt at a much lower interest rate than private companies. In 2022 our local power company issued green bonds to raise money for more renewables at 5.8% whereas our long-term govt bonds at the time were 2.75%.
The cost of renewables is a political decision as much as it is an economic decision. And if investment in renewables keeps us from war then that's a good investment. If that continues to solve climate change, then that's an equivalently valid long term goal.
posted by happyinmotion at 12:16 PM on March 15 [35 favorites]
Saving the planet just doesn't make economic sense. Preventing ecological damage that will make the chicxulub impact look survivable doesn't increase shareholder value. Not destroying our own species and countless other species at the same time just doesn't work with the Q4 financial forecast.
...
Guys! Guys! We solved the Fermi paradox!
posted by fnerg at 1:15 PM on March 15 [29 favorites]
...
Guys! Guys! We solved the Fermi paradox!
posted by fnerg at 1:15 PM on March 15 [29 favorites]
Robber baron declares that robber barons are going to increase the robbery is very pre-Great Recession.
posted by srboisvert at 4:14 PM on March 15 [6 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 4:14 PM on March 15 [6 favorites]
Guys! Guys! We solved the Fermi paradox!
As much as I would like to think that the entire universe isn't Ferengi, I find it difficult to argue with you. And yet somehow, we did manage for 80 years not to incinerate ourselves with nuclear weapons, so who knows?
posted by dannyboybell at 4:45 PM on March 15 [3 favorites]
As much as I would like to think that the entire universe isn't Ferengi, I find it difficult to argue with you. And yet somehow, we did manage for 80 years not to incinerate ourselves with nuclear weapons, so who knows?
posted by dannyboybell at 4:45 PM on March 15 [3 favorites]
> No other nation can blackmail you with the threat of turning off the sun or wind.
“We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun.”
posted by Clowder of bats at 5:01 PM on March 15 [7 favorites]
“We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun.”
posted by Clowder of bats at 5:01 PM on March 15 [7 favorites]
Yeah, neither does military spending. Stuff you do for self defense isn't going to make a profit.
posted by sotonohito at 8:08 PM on March 15 [1 favorite]
posted by sotonohito at 8:08 PM on March 15 [1 favorite]
possible sane-washed presentation on the US switch to 'Carbon Dominance' and away from the USD as the reserve currency, and on the emerging switch in global leadership on climate
posted by eustatic at 8:27 PM on March 15
posted by eustatic at 8:27 PM on March 15
"Decarbonization efforts don’t always make financial sense"
They do if you consider
a) buildings damaged or destroyed by the cyclones and forest fires that climate change makes more frequent and more severe;
b) increased insurance premiums due to a);
c) lost agricultural crops from climate change;
d) damage to human health from extreme weather (which results in medical costs, and also in lost earnings from premature deaths)
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 9:10 PM on March 15 [11 favorites]
They do if you consider
a) buildings damaged or destroyed by the cyclones and forest fires that climate change makes more frequent and more severe;
b) increased insurance premiums due to a);
c) lost agricultural crops from climate change;
d) damage to human health from extreme weather (which results in medical costs, and also in lost earnings from premature deaths)
posted by chariot pulled by cassowaries at 9:10 PM on March 15 [11 favorites]
Insurance companies are certainly pricing in the effects of climate change. And businesses that buy insurance, i.e., all of them, are going to have to do so too, sooner or later.
The peak of public interest in climate change may have peaked pre-pandemic, but many institutions have continued to focus on it. The Biden administration did more to fight climate change than any in U.S. history, although it oddly got precious little recognition or thanks for it from the people who had been most vocally upset about the issue a few years earlier.
While Trump is busily trying to undo all that work, some of it has proven to be too popular with too many people -- e.g., the tax breaks for renewable energy development in the Inflation Reduction Act, which a growing number of Republicans are opposed to repealing because they heavily benefit businesses in their red-state districts.
The Biden approach, which I've described as "all carrot, no stick,"- actually turns out to have worked remarkably well -- the tsunami of private capital that has flooded into this sector since the IRA passed in 2022 has been so massive that Trump will never be able to reverse it, even if he can slow it down a bit.
Renewable and electrification technologies (e.g., EVs) have been falling in price incredibly rapidly in recent years, and will inevitably continue to do so as they mature, as new innovations are incorporated, and as manufacturing gets more and more efficient.
Switching over to clean energy obviously requires an initial investment. But very soon, not switching is going to carry a greater price penalty than switching.
The pro-fossil-fuel, anti-EV rhetoric you see online (and hear from Trump and co.) is increasingly unhinged because resisting these technologies increasingly makes less and less economic sense. The smart people at the fossil fuel companies know what's coming, and are just trying to stave it off as long as possible.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:41 PM on March 15 [20 favorites]
The peak of public interest in climate change may have peaked pre-pandemic, but many institutions have continued to focus on it. The Biden administration did more to fight climate change than any in U.S. history, although it oddly got precious little recognition or thanks for it from the people who had been most vocally upset about the issue a few years earlier.
While Trump is busily trying to undo all that work, some of it has proven to be too popular with too many people -- e.g., the tax breaks for renewable energy development in the Inflation Reduction Act, which a growing number of Republicans are opposed to repealing because they heavily benefit businesses in their red-state districts.
The Biden approach, which I've described as "all carrot, no stick,"- actually turns out to have worked remarkably well -- the tsunami of private capital that has flooded into this sector since the IRA passed in 2022 has been so massive that Trump will never be able to reverse it, even if he can slow it down a bit.
Renewable and electrification technologies (e.g., EVs) have been falling in price incredibly rapidly in recent years, and will inevitably continue to do so as they mature, as new innovations are incorporated, and as manufacturing gets more and more efficient.
Switching over to clean energy obviously requires an initial investment. But very soon, not switching is going to carry a greater price penalty than switching.
The pro-fossil-fuel, anti-EV rhetoric you see online (and hear from Trump and co.) is increasingly unhinged because resisting these technologies increasingly makes less and less economic sense. The smart people at the fossil fuel companies know what's coming, and are just trying to stave it off as long as possible.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:41 PM on March 15 [20 favorites]
The UK has dropped their emissions to levels not seen since 1872.
Only because everything is made in China. That's just moving the carbon around!
posted by bluemat at 2:04 AM on March 16 [2 favorites]
Only because everything is made in China. That's just moving the carbon around!
posted by bluemat at 2:04 AM on March 16 [2 favorites]
The emphasis on climate action and transitioning to cleaner energy has waned in recent years as more emphasis is often placed on energy security and affordability.
There is literally no energy right now that's more secure or affordable than distributed solar/wind/geothermal. Add in battery storage, and the upfront cost is greater, but the security increased. The problem (from this article's perspective) is not that it's not secure and affordable, but that the wealthiest people in the world will make slightly less money that way.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:51 AM on March 16 [5 favorites]
There is literally no energy right now that's more secure or affordable than distributed solar/wind/geothermal. Add in battery storage, and the upfront cost is greater, but the security increased. The problem (from this article's perspective) is not that it's not secure and affordable, but that the wealthiest people in the world will make slightly less money that way.
posted by hydropsyche at 3:51 AM on March 16 [5 favorites]
Kafue river in Zambia (mostly) dead overnight after a leach poor broke at a Chinese-owned mine
I've read 70 million people effected, but including nations downstream from Zambia, but not sure the real damages of course.
The Copperwood mine proposal creates a similarly direct threat to Lake Superior
posted by jeffburdges at 6:23 AM on March 16 [4 favorites]
I've read 70 million people effected, but including nations downstream from Zambia, but not sure the real damages of course.
The Copperwood mine proposal creates a similarly direct threat to Lake Superior
posted by jeffburdges at 6:23 AM on March 16 [4 favorites]
TIL that the guy who heads up the world's biggest asset management outfit is named Fink.
Honestly, that's just lazy writing.
posted by flabdablet at 6:54 AM on March 16 [1 favorite]
Honestly, that's just lazy writing.
posted by flabdablet at 6:54 AM on March 16 [1 favorite]
Ya know, shale oil winds up remarkably inflationary too, by the same reasoning Lary Fink uses. Russia destroyed the first round of shale investments by the US, thanks to the the extra marginal cost from the worse EROI. It's much less inflationary than having less energy.
We've minimal oil & gas reserves in both Europe and China, not sure about India, so renewables and electrification make immeidate strategic sense there, because otherwise Putin, Trump, etc shall restrict our energy access for millitary and economic advantage. Instead, we should heavily curb all non-essential oil and gas use, like domestric flights and personal vehicles, meaning we shold dramatically increase taxes on ICE vehicles and fuels. We need to on-shore more production of solar and batteries in Europe too, evne if this makes them expensieve.
Inflation cannot be avoided longer term anyways, becuase real economic growth cannot really continue. Around this, Lotka's wheel and the long arm of history by Timothy J. Garrett, Matheus R. Grasselli, and Stephen Keen rocks.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:23 AM on March 16 [3 favorites]
We've minimal oil & gas reserves in both Europe and China, not sure about India, so renewables and electrification make immeidate strategic sense there, because otherwise Putin, Trump, etc shall restrict our energy access for millitary and economic advantage. Instead, we should heavily curb all non-essential oil and gas use, like domestric flights and personal vehicles, meaning we shold dramatically increase taxes on ICE vehicles and fuels. We need to on-shore more production of solar and batteries in Europe too, evne if this makes them expensieve.
Inflation cannot be avoided longer term anyways, becuase real economic growth cannot really continue. Around this, Lotka's wheel and the long arm of history by Timothy J. Garrett, Matheus R. Grasselli, and Stephen Keen rocks.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:23 AM on March 16 [3 favorites]
becuase real economic growth cannot really continue.
Perhaps. But much like life is a chemical adaptation to dissipate incident solar radiation, have faith in our ability to generate ever more baroque financial contrivances that expand the economy.
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 7:28 AM on March 16
Perhaps. But much like life is a chemical adaptation to dissipate incident solar radiation, have faith in our ability to generate ever more baroque financial contrivances that expand the economy.
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 7:28 AM on March 16
Only because everything is made in China. That's just moving the carbon around!
This is such a tired old canard. Have a look at world carbon emissions by sector. Notice how manufacturing and construction is a relatively small piece of the pie? And that's all manufacturing and construction (the UK has definitely not moved their construction industry to China). Maybe you can add a little of industry and a bit of electricity. And aviation and shipping is only a very small slice of the pie.
But the big slices of the pie are electricity and heat, transport and buildings, buildings, waste, etc. These are largely local sectors. Those are areas where the UK has made significant progress (as has much of Europe).
There's no doubt that China's emissions have gone way up (now at more than twice the per capita level of the UK). Some part of that is in fact for export, but far more of it is for domestic consumption. For example, China produces more than half of the world's steel and only exports about 10% of that.
The UK did not reduce their per capita carbon emissions by 55% over the last 25 years by moving the carbon to China. Outsourcing of manufacturing is only a small part of it — and it helps no one to suggest otherwise. We should celebrate emissions reduction successes where they have happened, not dismiss them.
posted by ssg at 10:00 AM on March 16 [13 favorites]
This is such a tired old canard. Have a look at world carbon emissions by sector. Notice how manufacturing and construction is a relatively small piece of the pie? And that's all manufacturing and construction (the UK has definitely not moved their construction industry to China). Maybe you can add a little of industry and a bit of electricity. And aviation and shipping is only a very small slice of the pie.
But the big slices of the pie are electricity and heat, transport and buildings, buildings, waste, etc. These are largely local sectors. Those are areas where the UK has made significant progress (as has much of Europe).
There's no doubt that China's emissions have gone way up (now at more than twice the per capita level of the UK). Some part of that is in fact for export, but far more of it is for domestic consumption. For example, China produces more than half of the world's steel and only exports about 10% of that.
The UK did not reduce their per capita carbon emissions by 55% over the last 25 years by moving the carbon to China. Outsourcing of manufacturing is only a small part of it — and it helps no one to suggest otherwise. We should celebrate emissions reduction successes where they have happened, not dismiss them.
posted by ssg at 10:00 AM on March 16 [13 favorites]
We certianly invent wild financial video games, DeepSeaHaggis. We now propose many more non-productive economic activities than we actually complete too. At some point though, we either allow the video game money to purchase reources, or we do not, which ultimately determines their reality.
There is a better description in the terminology of Peter Turchin : Elites can temporarily shild themselves from the end of growth by running the "wealth pump" faster, worsening mass immiseration. We've likely observed this with low interest rates for decades really, but now elites need more drastic measures, so they're actually culling one another, hence Trump.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:10 PM on March 16
There is a better description in the terminology of Peter Turchin : Elites can temporarily shild themselves from the end of growth by running the "wealth pump" faster, worsening mass immiseration. We've likely observed this with low interest rates for decades really, but now elites need more drastic measures, so they're actually culling one another, hence Trump.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:10 PM on March 16
I shared this with a friend who does environmental research and he quickly found a published article that states the opposite conclusion: renewables lower inflation
posted by thecjm at 4:34 PM on March 16 [4 favorites]
posted by thecjm at 4:34 PM on March 16 [4 favorites]
I'm getting solar installed in a few weeks. Decarbonization is still a priority to me. Now to convince the Alberta government…
posted by mazola at 5:34 PM on March 16 [3 favorites]
posted by mazola at 5:34 PM on March 16 [3 favorites]
Bill Gates gives up on climate change (via)
Silly, misleading headline.
Gates is shutting down his climate lobbying operation in D.C., presumably because it just wouldn't really serve any purpose for the next several years.
But he's still putting money into green energy investments... as the article itself acknowledges.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 5:57 PM on March 16
Silly, misleading headline.
Gates is shutting down his climate lobbying operation in D.C., presumably because it just wouldn't really serve any purpose for the next several years.
But he's still putting money into green energy investments... as the article itself acknowledges.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 5:57 PM on March 16
An entire town burned down in my province. An entire town.
The cost is astonomical for individuals and the province. Yet this week we dropped the carbon tax because it is no loger viable politically.
How is it viable economically to continue?
posted by chapps at 10:21 PM on March 16 [2 favorites]
The cost is astonomical for individuals and the province. Yet this week we dropped the carbon tax because it is no loger viable politically.
How is it viable economically to continue?
posted by chapps at 10:21 PM on March 16 [2 favorites]
The consumer 'Carbon Tax' was removed, but Carney intends to refocus on heavy emitters so it's just changing tactics more than anything (more details here). Alberta Premier Smith hates this updated strategy so it can't be all bad.
As much as the issues laid out in the FPP are true, decarbonizing is happening worldwide regardless. Support progress where you see it and where you can. It all makes a difference.
posted by mazola at 8:47 AM on March 17 [2 favorites]
As much as the issues laid out in the FPP are true, decarbonizing is happening worldwide regardless. Support progress where you see it and where you can. It all makes a difference.
posted by mazola at 8:47 AM on March 17 [2 favorites]
« Older More like Artificial Stupidity, am I right? | Stunningly crafted wee spaces Newer »
"while there is no significant relationship between inflation and renewable energy in the short term, renewable energy affects inflation negatively in the long term. According to the results of the CCE cointegration analysis, in the long run, renewable energy affects inflation negatively" [researchsquare]
posted by HearHere at 11:04 AM on March 15 [4 favorites]