Net Zero EU

2 reports:

EU Commission https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/default/files/docs/pages/com_2018_733_analysis_in_support_en_0.pdf

and McKinsey https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Sustainability/Our%20Insights/How%20the%20European%20Union%20could%20achieve%20net%20zero%20emissions%20at%20net%20zero%20cost/Net-zero-Europe-vF.pdf?shouldIndex=false

and Adam Tooze on Social Europe https://www.socialeurope.eu/europes-decarbonisation-challenge-wir-schaffen-das

from Tooze:

between now and 2050, almost half the necessary investment will not meet standard investment criteria

need to mobilise €4.9 trillion in subsidies over 30 years. That is the amount of profit taxpayers would need to offer investors to get them interested in the energy transition—€365 for every man, woman and child in the EU27, every year for 30 years.

Total GDP of the EU27 in 2019 was shy of €14 trillion. Overall investment runs to about 22 per cent of GDP. McKinsey suggests that, to achieve net zero by 2050, the EU needs to invest every year about 5.8 per cent of GDP in the energy transition

a carbon price of €100 per ton 80 per cent of the necessary investment could be justified on commercial grounds.

EU’s regular budget is capped at 1 per cent of GDP

NextGenerationEU programme is a step in the right direction, but the €32 billion per annum it allocates to climate spending over the next seven years is far too small

Both modelling exercises predict that a carbon-neutral economy by 2050 will offer more jobs than the fossil-fuel-addicted status quo

Europe’s neighbours in north Africa are obvious clean-energy partners.

As McKinsey remarks en passant, reaching net-zero may require 18 million workers to be reskilled by 2050 but this is small beer by comparison with the 100 million it expects to need retraining already by 2030, on account of what it euphemistically refers to as ‘automation’.

Cheap inputs and tech epochs

from Carlota Perez “Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital”Screenshot 2020-06-17 at 11.23.56

4th epoch is cheap oil, 5th is cheap bits. 6th?

If it has to be Green then it has to be renewables energies, cheap renewables?

cheap and abundant, the two things are tied in learning curves. Ramez Naam is working the Pareto curves himself.

Solar Future in Insanely Cheap

But a planet on renewables would require a lot of solar and wind, for example this report on reaching 90% renewables in the US calls for doubling new installation every year in the 20s and trebling in the thirtiesScreenshot 2020-06-17 at 11.55.17

Report 2035 di Goldman Sachs and U. Berkeley.

technologists for the environment

Chris Sacca the legendary early investor of Uber, Twitter, Instagram, Stripe, Kickstarter claims he no lo ger investing in tech, he will invest only in envirnment, democracy and justice

Screenshot 2020-03-02 at 15.26.18

Ramez Namm is a former Microsoft whio gained fame as a science fiction writer. He is a staunch bliever that clean technology has legs to run on its own. He tours the world, lecturing fund managers on how they should invest for money not for morals

Screenshot 2020-03-02 at 15.30.57

brick inflation vs. green inflation

Screenshot 2020-02-05 at 14.24.57

Central banks have a problem, they can’t create inflation. ECB is the worst plagued by that.

So the Chief Economist Lane suggests to add real estate costs to CPI and pump up inflation accordingly, real estate markets are in a bull run Philip Lane, the ECB’s chief economist, has been even more specific. “We at the ECB would agree that there should be more weight on housing,” Read more at: https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfly/why-your-housing-costs-matter-to-christine-lagarde-and-the-ecb Copyright © BloombergQuint

ECB Chief Lagarde does not mention inflation at all but only green. Decarbonization would be a great way to add some inflation to the system

A carbon tax is more or less an oil shock where the surplus stay in the domestic economic rather than flying to Saudi Arabia. Carbon tax would make great financial sense if the target is higher inflation (of course it will shock the economy, reallocate resources among economic sectors, offer various option on how to redistribute the increased taxes imagine a carbon dividend for example) So a green oil shock would serve many purposes and open up many dimensions of public policy

Green QE story https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/12/17/1576593138000/Green-QE-is-about-more-than-buying-climate-friendly-bonds/

 

Hydrogen post

Hydrogen elctrolysis can be economic efficient in a scenario of abundant renewables generation and carbon tax. Froma tweetstorm, full of useful charts https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1176451011600441344.html

Blue Hydrogen is the cheapest option to decarbonise heavy industries. Green hydrogen more stringent on electricity cost and/or hydrolysis learning curve https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/research/report/low-carbon-heat-solutions-heavy-industry-sources-options-and-costs-today

Report IEA “The future of Hydrogen” https://www.snam.it/it/hydrogen_challenge/report_iea/

Report SNAM-McKinsey “THE HYDROGEN CHALLENGE: The potential of hydrogen in Italy” https://www.snam.it/it/hydrogen_challenge/studio_mckinsey/”

Eurelectric Decarbonisation Pathways https://www.eurelectric.org/decarbonisation-pathways/

energy, follow the money

Screenshot 2019-06-12 at 11.26.03US dominance in oil makes impossible to reduce emissions and meet green targets

new shale oil developments will eat all of USA allowances of carbon emissions under Paris Agreement

1,9 trillion from banks to fossil fules in USA since Paris in 2016

only 1,3% of investments to renewables by oil majors

thanks to Adam Tooze, links to specific tweets:

based on reports from:

Rainforest Action Network https://www.ran.org/bankingonclimatechange2019/#data-panel

PriceofOil.org http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2019/01/Drilling-Towards-Disaster-Web-v3.pdf

(will all these links survive of be lost as tears in the rain ? Should I screenshots like there is no (internet) tomorrow?)

here’s the screens 🙂