IEA: Clean energy shift will save world $71 trillion through 2050

A global transition to clean energy would cost $44 trillion but save $115 trillion in avoided fuel costs, according to a new report. Such benefits would be spread out over the course of decades. A broad shift to clean energy will require more holistic, long-term approaches to policy and financing.  

Julio Cortez/AP/File
Solar panels line the roof of the building at Newark Liberty International Airport. Decarbonizing most of the global energy system by 2050 would require an additional $44 trillion investment, according to a new report, which would be offset by $115 trillion in fuel savings.

Transitioning to a cleaner, more-efficient energy mix will save the global economy trillions of dollars in avoided fuel costs, according to a report released Monday by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Much of the savings will come in the form of efficiency upgrades for buildings and vehicles, but deployment of more wind, solar, and other renewable technologies will also play an important role.

The challenge is that most of the financial and environmental benefits of a cleaner energy system develop over the course of decades, and don't always accrue to those who make the initial investment. National energy policies tend to be short-term and narrowly focused on specific fuels, further discouraging private investment and broad public support for wind, solar, and other new energy technologies. Meanwhile, much of the developing world is fueling growth with cheap, carbon-heavy fuels. That offsets reductions in carbon emissions made elsewhere, driving a rise in average global temperatures. 

It's why progress on clean energy "remains bleak," according to IEA, and requires a more holistic, long-term approach to financing and governing decarbonization. 

"It’s important that we look at this from a more systematic approach," said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven in an interview with the Monitor. That requires better integrating all the components and sectors that make up an energy system – from low-carbon fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, from energy efficiency to smart grids, and from better cars to better buildings.

"If you think that only by having more renewables you can save the world – I think this is an illusion," Ms. Van der Hoeven said via telephone. "You have to do more than that. You have to look at the whole system of electricity generation, and [see] where you have the benefits and where the costs will be." 

Energy efficiency stands to play a primary, low-cost role in reducing carbon emissions worldwide, according to IEA's Energy Technology Perspectives 2014, released Monday. In the IEA's most aggressive vision of a sustainable energy future, efficiency accounts for 38 percent of cumulative emissions reductions, compared with 30 percent from renewables. This would come in the form of more fuel-efficient cars, and building codes that promote more sustainable architecture and design. 

"[The] transport sector uses more than 50 percent of oil currently extracted and it’s only been increasing," Van der Hoeven said. "[The] building sector already uses 50 percent of global electricity generated. If you could do something there to halve that, that would be a huge, huge achievement.”

Decarbonizing most of the global energy system by 2050 would require an additional $44 trillion investment, according to the latest IEA report, up from the estimated $36 trillion in last year's assessment. Those costs are offset by $115 trillion in fuel savings, according to IEA, resulting in net savings of $71 trillion through 2050. Even factoring in a 10 percent discount rate (that accounts for inflation and the uncertainties of cash flows), the net savings are more than $5 trillion in today's dollars.

Attracting that investment has been difficult because it requires large upfront capital costs, and because there is still a lot of uncertainty over clean-energy policy, according to David Elzinga, lead author of Monday's report.

"We have to change that," Mr. Elzinga said via telephone. "It doesn’t mean we can’t evolve policies, it doesn’t mean we have to set them in stone and keep them going. But we have to give investors certainty so that they can have some assurance they are going to recoup their investments." 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to