• 4 minutes Energy Armageddon
  • 6 minutes How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy
  • 10 minutes Wind droughts
  • 1 day "Biden Is Running U.S. Energy Security Into The Ground" by Irina Slav
  • 1 day GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES
  • 8 hours "Natural Gas Price Fundamental Daily Forecast – Grinding Toward Summer Highs Despite Huge Short Interest" by James Hyerczyk & REUTERS on NatGas
  • 7 hours "How to Calculate Your Individual ESG Score to ensure that your Digital ID 'benefits' and money are accessible"
  • 14 hours Oil Stocks, Market Direction, Bitcoin, Minerals, Gold, Silver - Technical Trading <--- Chris Vermeulen & Gareth Soloway weigh in
  • 7 days "Forget Oil, The Real Crisis Is Diesel Inventories: The US Has Just 25 Days Left" by Zero Hedge - 5 Stars *****
  • 7 hours The Federal Reserve and Money...Aspects which are not widely known
  • 5 days Is Europe heading for winter of discontent with extensive gas shortages?
  • 14 hours "Europe’s Energy Crisis Has Ended Its Era Of Abundance" by Irina Slav
  • 13 hours "Dodgy Demand Data? The Oil Price Collapse Conspiracy" by Alex Kimani
  • 7 days "The Global Digital ID Prison" by James Corbett of CorbettReport.com
  • 8 days Goldman Betting on Cryptocurrencies
  • 12 days Сryptocurrency predictions
The Environmental Consequence Of Burning Rubber

The Environmental Consequence Of Burning Rubber

New modeling put together by…

Is Climate Change Really Fueling A Rise In Dangerous Hurricanes?

Is Climate Change Really Fueling A Rise In Dangerous Hurricanes?

U.S. politicians frequently suggest climate-exacerbated…

Haley Zaremba

Haley Zaremba

Haley Zaremba is a writer and journalist based in Mexico City. She has extensive experience writing and editing environmental features, travel pieces, local news in the…

More Info

Premium Content

Climate Change Could Cost The Global Economy $23 Trillion By 2050

  • Climate change could cost the global economy as much as $23 trillion by 2050.
  • The U.S. federal government alone could spend between $25 billion and $128 billion each year in such areas as coastal disaster relief, flood insurance and crop insurance.
  • A new report from Oxford University found that switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy could save the world a whopping $12 trillion US dollars by just 2050.

For decades, we have known that transitioning away from fossil fuels and toward a decarbonized economy was essential to the health of our planet and of future generations. It’s almost impossible to overstate what is at stake if the world continues to burn fossil fuels at a continuous or increasing rate. Experts say that in a business-as-usual scenario, ecological and economic devastation are not just a threat, but an inevitability. So why has the clean energy transition been so slow, piecemeal, and contentious? A huge part of the issue is the simple momentum of the status quo. The world already functions on a carbon-based economy, and turning that entrenched system on its head will cost an enormous amount of time, effort, and investments. Indeed, the initial price tag of redesigning and remaking the world’s energy sector and all of its associated carbon-based supply chains is daunting to say the least, especially for developing nations. It is misguided, however, to think that the clean energy transition will be a costly and overall expensive venture. In fact, it is the only plan that makes any economic sense in the medium or long term. 

A brand new empirically grounded report from Oxford University finds that switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy could save the world a whopping $12 trillion US dollars by just 2050. For years, scientists have been reporting that the renewable revolution will overall save money – lots of money – over a long enough timeline, given the devastating negative externalities of climate change, but that amount has grown larger and larger as the cost of renewable energy technologies has continued to fall. 

The cost of solar energy alone has plummeted by 80% since 2010, and renewables as a whole were the cheapest source of energy in the world in 2020. In fact, renewables have consistently fallen in cost faster than experts have projected, making the renewable revolution even cheaper than anticipated. While renewable energies have not been spared from the soaring prices and supply chain snags that have characterized the energy sector this year, they are also far from the worst perpetrators, and have in many cases been a failsafe for energy security amidst the crisis fueled by Putin’s war in Ukraine. In fact, in the context of the energy crisis in Europe, “new renewable sources, based on contracts outside the market, offer power at under a quarter of current and projected wholesale electricity prices.” 

"Even if you're a climate denier, you should be on board with what we're advocating," Prof Doyne Farmer from the Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School told BBC News. Going forward, clean energy is going to continue to be the cheapest option, whether you factor in environmental externalities or not. But when you do factor them in, oh boy is it a no-brainer. Insurance giant Swiss Re calculates that climate change could cost the global economy $23 trillion USD in 2050. An April analysis by the United States Office of Management and Budget calculated that climate change could cost $2 trillion each year for the United States alone by the end of the century. 

Related: What’s Inside Of Biden’s Big Electrification Plan?

The report also found that the federal government “could spend an additional $25 billion to $128 billion each year in such areas as coastal disaster relief, flood insurance and crop insurance.” Just this week, in fact, the Biden administration has pledged that the federal government will cover 100% of the cleanup costs in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Fiona barreled into the U.S. island territory. This is just on the heels of the $12 billion already granted – the largest single inversion ever granted by FEMA – to Puerto Rico to rebuild a more resilient energy infrastructure in the wake of Hurricane Maria, which wiped out the island’s grid exactly five years ago. 

These kinds of climate-driven crises are only going to become more frequent, more powerful, and more costly. For every additional tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted into the atmosphere, the higher the price tag of delaying the clean energy transition. The Oxford report empirically underscores the fact that not only is decarbonization an economic imperative, the faster we do it, the more money we’ll save. The models are clear: time’s a-wastin’.

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:


Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage





Leave a comment
  • Hugh Williams on September 25 2022 said:
    I do not understand how flooding will be a disaster. We are approaching the end of a 125,000 climate cycle. Last time the sea level was 6 meters higher than it is now. Now the sea level is rising at the rate of 3 mm per year, or about a foot per 100 years.
  • Mamdouh Salameh on September 25 2022 said:
    Such highfalutin and unsubstantiated claims won’t wash now or in the future because they are based on flawed assumptions.

    The global economy will continue to be driven by fossil fuels throughout the 21st century and probably far beyond. Moreover, a total global energy transition is an illusion. Even a partial one won’t succeed without major contributions of natural gas and to some extent nuclear energy and coal (yes coal). Furthermore, the notion of net-zero emissions in 2050 or 2100 or ever is a myth. It simply isn’t going to happen.

    The EU’s hasty policies of accelerating energy transition at the expense of fossil fuels haven’t only plunged the EU in its worst energy crisis in its history but the costs could be easily estimated to exceed $1.0 trillion so far with a harsh recession to boot.

    More than $6 trillion have been spend on renewables in the last decade with nothing to show for it than loss of one percentage point of the share of coal in the global primary energy consumption. Even this 1% loss has been recouped by coal during the current energy crisis.

    We are now in an energy diversification mode. This means that renewables have to earn their share like other sources of energy. The highest their shares rise in global electricity generation, the less fossil fuels to be used. That is the rational way of combatting climate change instead of threatening humanity and the world with existential catastrophes that nobody can tell with certainty whether they are going to materialize or not.

    Therefore, picking figures from thin air even by Oxford University isn’t going to make a jot of difference to the situation.

    Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
    International Oil Economist
    Global Energy Expert
  • Bill Mal on September 25 2022 said:
    So does Oxford conclude that there were no natural disasters prior to the industrial revolution? What are the economic losses currently and in the near future attributable to extreme green climate agendas that are unreliable, impractical and irresponsibility deployed? We are already seeing the unintended consequences from over zealous climate policy.

    There are some really liberal assumptions being made here.

Leave a comment




EXXON Mobil -0.35
Open57.81 Trading Vol.6.96M Previous Vol.241.7B
BUY 57.15
Sell 57.00
Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News