[asa] McKinsey report argues the net cost of GHG stabilization is near zeor

FYI. McKinsey argues that "fixing" AGW will cost about zero.

j

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Climate Progress <jromm@americanprogress.org>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:04:08 +0000
Subject: Climate Progress
To: hossradbourne@gmail.com

Climate Progress

///////////////////////////////////////////
Do you have any questions for McKinsey about their updated GHG cost curve,
which (still) finds stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net cost near zero?

Posted: 09 May 2009 10:41 AM PDT
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/climateprogress/lCrX/~3/hO5AVm9Gs1Q/

I have written a great deal about the terrific work of McKinsey & Company
(see McKinsey 2008 Research in Review: Stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net
cost near zero and links below).

So I was excited and delighted to be invited by the The German Marshall
Fund to be the respondent for a roundtable discussion Monday in DC (details
below) on their updated cost-curve, which I have an early glimpse of for
Climate Progress readers [click to enlarge]:

Nobody has as detailed a set of bottom up numbers as McKinsey though I
certainly have some issues with their work. Too little concentrated solar
thermal power and it is not a little cheaper than PV, its a lot bigger.

Anyway here are details of the event, in case you are in DC and can make
it. And again, Id be interested in ideas for responses or questions to
McKinsey.

The German Marshall Fund of the United States cordially invites you to a
climate policy briefing to discuss Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy
featuring

Jon Wilkins, Partner

McKinsey & Company, Inc.

Dr. Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow

Center for American Progress

Monday, May 11, 2009

12:00 pm to 1:30 pm

Charlie Palmer, 101 Constitution Avenue NW

The German Marshall Fund of the United States is pleased to host a
roundtable discussion on the costs of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in different sectors around the globe. Leaders in many nations
are discussing ambitious targets to reduce GHG emissions. The EU is
planning to cut its emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 and will aim
for a 30% reduction if other countries with high emissions take on similar
targets. At the same time, an intense debate is underway on the technical
and economic feasibility of different target levels, which emission
reduction opportunities should be pursued, and the costs of meeting the
targets. This event will provide an opportunity for an open discussion on
the latest global cost curve analysis by McKinsey & Company, Inc.,
including the modeling assumptions and policy implications.

Please RSVP by e-mail or telephone to Guido Zucconi at 202-683-2670 or
gzucconi@gmfus.org

Come if you can, comment if you cant!

Related Posts:

Must read McKinsey report shatters myths on cost of curbing climate change
Energy efficiency is THE core climate solution, Part 1: The biggest
low-carbon resource by far
Part 2: The limitless resource
Part 3: The only cheap power left
Part 4: How does California do it so consistently and cost-effectively?
Energy efficiency, Part 5: The highest documented rate of return of any
federal program
Introduction to climate economics: Why even strong climate action has such
a low total cost one tenth of a penny on the dollar
How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global
warming solution (updated)

--
You are subscribed to email updates from "Climate Progress."
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now
http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailunsubscribe?k=rG1ZYl6zbzVDIPQEDxw2GV-C5Ss
If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Climate Progress,
c/o Google, 20 W Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610
Email delivery powered by Google.
-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.