Transcript: New from BookNet Canada for 2024: BNC CataList - Tech Forum 2024
Green Stimulus Presentation
1. How green is the stimulus package? - Renewable Energy Provisions Cai Steger, Energy Policy Analyst NRDC Center for Market Innovation August 27, 2009
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. Long term impact of Stimulus is expected to boost renewables deployment well above current EIA B.A.U. Source: “Renewable Energy Project Financing: Impacts of the Financial Crisis and Federal Legislation” http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/44930.pdf
7.
8.
9.
Editor's Notes
NJE-AAA123-20070318-
NJE-AAA123-20070318-
Additional comments: Three things are unique about the work compared to other abatement reports: 1. We have the broadest possible scope, i.e. all sectors, regions and gases. The IEA for instance, looks only at CO2 emissions (not at the other GHG gases) from energy usage (e.g. not forestry, agriculture, and process emissions from industry). 2. Many other reports do not take the cost curve approach, and therefore cannot compare the relative economic attractiveness of different abatement options 3. We are less consensus-driven than most of the international organizations, and can therefore draw more interesting/proactive conclusions The value of our work lies primarily in the comprehensive view that allow us to compare the order of magnitude of different opportunities We compare the work with a 16 th century geographical world map – the broad picture we believe is correct, but many individual measures will certainly develop differently from our model
NJE-AAA123-20070318-
Additional comments: Three things are unique about the work compared to other abatement reports: 1. We have the broadest possible scope, i.e. all sectors, regions and gases. The IEA for instance, looks only at CO2 emissions (not at the other GHG gases) from energy usage (e.g. not forestry, agriculture, and process emissions from industry). 2. Many other reports do not take the cost curve approach, and therefore cannot compare the relative economic attractiveness of different abatement options 3. We are less consensus-driven than most of the international organizations, and can therefore draw more interesting/proactive conclusions The value of our work lies primarily in the comprehensive view that allow us to compare the order of magnitude of different opportunities We compare the work with a 16 th century geographical world map – the broad picture we believe is correct, but many individual measures will certainly develop differently from our model
Additional comments: Three things are unique about the work compared to other abatement reports: 1. We have the broadest possible scope, i.e. all sectors, regions and gases. The IEA for instance, looks only at CO2 emissions (not at the other GHG gases) from energy usage (e.g. not forestry, agriculture, and process emissions from industry). 2. Many other reports do not take the cost curve approach, and therefore cannot compare the relative economic attractiveness of different abatement options 3. We are less consensus-driven than most of the international organizations, and can therefore draw more interesting/proactive conclusions The value of our work lies primarily in the comprehensive view that allow us to compare the order of magnitude of different opportunities We compare the work with a 16 th century geographical world map – the broad picture we believe is correct, but many individual measures will certainly develop differently from our model
Additional comments: Three things are unique about the work compared to other abatement reports: 1. We have the broadest possible scope, i.e. all sectors, regions and gases. The IEA for instance, looks only at CO2 emissions (not at the other GHG gases) from energy usage (e.g. not forestry, agriculture, and process emissions from industry). 2. Many other reports do not take the cost curve approach, and therefore cannot compare the relative economic attractiveness of different abatement options 3. We are less consensus-driven than most of the international organizations, and can therefore draw more interesting/proactive conclusions The value of our work lies primarily in the comprehensive view that allow us to compare the order of magnitude of different opportunities We compare the work with a 16 th century geographical world map – the broad picture we believe is correct, but many individual measures will certainly develop differently from our model
Additional comments: Three things are unique about the work compared to other abatement reports: 1. We have the broadest possible scope, i.e. all sectors, regions and gases. The IEA for instance, looks only at CO2 emissions (not at the other GHG gases) from energy usage (e.g. not forestry, agriculture, and process emissions from industry). 2. Many other reports do not take the cost curve approach, and therefore cannot compare the relative economic attractiveness of different abatement options 3. We are less consensus-driven than most of the international organizations, and can therefore draw more interesting/proactive conclusions The value of our work lies primarily in the comprehensive view that allow us to compare the order of magnitude of different opportunities We compare the work with a 16 th century geographical world map – the broad picture we believe is correct, but many individual measures will certainly develop differently from our model
![Key messages ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()