Pittsburgh Pete
Elite Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Pennsylvania
the Continuation of Mr. Kerry's comments:
"I know at first blush it seems difficult for – it seems difficult to rationalize investing in clean energy when your economy is already strained, when you got millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of poor people, and sources like coal and oil appear cheaper and they appear closer at hand, at least in the near term.
But here’s the fact: The fact is that in the long term, carbon-intensive energy is one of the costliest investments any government could possibly make.
And that is why in the United States, we have stopped any public funding of certain kinds of carbon-based and coal-based, other based power plant, because the invoice for carbon-based energy includes far more than the costs of building and operating a power plant. And that doesn’t show up in the balance sheet. The cost assessments that are true have to account for externalities – which, in the case of climate change, are enough to at least double or triple the initial costs. So you’re not looking at six cents; you’re looking at two or three times.
For example, you have to include the price of unimaginable agriculture and environmental degradation; of hospital bills for asthma, for emphysema patients, the millions of deaths that are linked to air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuel. You have to include the cost of rebuilding after devastating storms and flooding. Just in the time since I became Secretary of State in 2013, the United States has been forced to spend nearly $160 billion in the wake of extreme weather events, 160 billion in under three years.
This is just a glimpse of what is to come for all of us: infrastructure maintenance in the face of rising seas and stronger storms, power outages, labor productivity losses due to extreme heat – the list goes on. And all of this and more has to be added to the cost of continued reliance on high-carbon energy sources.
There can be no doubt: The cost of pursuing clean energy is now far cheaper and getting cheaper – cheaper against today’s alternatives, but far cheaper against the consequences of climate change later.
But for developing countries, I acknowledge cost is only part of the equation. It’s only one part. Developing nations don’t have the same means or capacity as other countries, or access to the same technologies. That’s why the wealthier among us need to do our part to help to mobilize funding, to build capacity, to help make low-cost technology available – and the United States will continue to do that at enhanced levels."
"I know at first blush it seems difficult for – it seems difficult to rationalize investing in clean energy when your economy is already strained, when you got millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of poor people, and sources like coal and oil appear cheaper and they appear closer at hand, at least in the near term.
But here’s the fact: The fact is that in the long term, carbon-intensive energy is one of the costliest investments any government could possibly make.
And that is why in the United States, we have stopped any public funding of certain kinds of carbon-based and coal-based, other based power plant, because the invoice for carbon-based energy includes far more than the costs of building and operating a power plant. And that doesn’t show up in the balance sheet. The cost assessments that are true have to account for externalities – which, in the case of climate change, are enough to at least double or triple the initial costs. So you’re not looking at six cents; you’re looking at two or three times.
For example, you have to include the price of unimaginable agriculture and environmental degradation; of hospital bills for asthma, for emphysema patients, the millions of deaths that are linked to air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuel. You have to include the cost of rebuilding after devastating storms and flooding. Just in the time since I became Secretary of State in 2013, the United States has been forced to spend nearly $160 billion in the wake of extreme weather events, 160 billion in under three years.
This is just a glimpse of what is to come for all of us: infrastructure maintenance in the face of rising seas and stronger storms, power outages, labor productivity losses due to extreme heat – the list goes on. And all of this and more has to be added to the cost of continued reliance on high-carbon energy sources.
There can be no doubt: The cost of pursuing clean energy is now far cheaper and getting cheaper – cheaper against today’s alternatives, but far cheaper against the consequences of climate change later.
But for developing countries, I acknowledge cost is only part of the equation. It’s only one part. Developing nations don’t have the same means or capacity as other countries, or access to the same technologies. That’s why the wealthier among us need to do our part to help to mobilize funding, to build capacity, to help make low-cost technology available – and the United States will continue to do that at enhanced levels."
