Mon Feb 4th, 2013 at 03:17:47 AM EST
[The Hoist: featuring an item or items from today's Newsroom]
David Roberts on Grist:
The cost of not using renewable energy | Grist
A clever new study [PDF] from the World Future Council attempts to do something I haven’t seen before: quantify the cost of not using renewables.
The idea is pretty simple. When we use finite fossil fuels to generate energy, rather than the inexhaustible, renewable alternatives, we make those fossil fuels unavailable for non-energetic uses (think petrochemicals) in the future. In other words, when we burn fossil fuels for energy, we are needlessly destroying valuable industrial capital stock.
You can read the paper for more on methodology and assumptions. The paper uses current market values for fossil fuels rather than attempting to predict future prices, so the estimates are likely conservative.
Here’s the conclusion:
Protecting the use of increasingly valuable fossil raw materials for the future is possible by substituting these materials with renewables. Every day that this is delayed and fossil raw materials are consumed as one-time energy creates a future usage loss of between 8.8 and 9.3 billion US Dollars. Not just the current cost of various renewable energies, but also the costs of not using them need to be taken into account. [my emphasis]
Wind and solar will bequeath future generations more petrochemicals? Hmm.
But burning up fossil fuels now will surely increase the scarcity cost of the remaining resources in the future. Shouldn't we be hearing more about this in media commentary from those who promise a dire future for our grandchildren because of the debt we will be leaving them?