Press release - July 6, 2007
US$180 billion. Per year. That's the massive amount of money the world could save by moving to a renewable energy future. The Future Investment report demonstrates that a safe renewable energy future would not only cut our global CO2 emissions from the electricity sector in half by 2030, it would also cost 10 times less than a ‘business as usual’ fossil-fuel future would. By shifting global investments to renewable energy (including solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and bio energy), within the next 23 years, and away from dirty and dangerous coal and nuclear power, we can save a massive US$180 billion a year.
For further information, contact
K. Srinivas, Climate and Energy Expert, Greenpeace +91 98451-12130 Ruchira Talukdar, Greenpeace Communications - +91-9900264127 Oliver Schäfer, EREC Policy Director + 32 496 65 2837
Notes to Editor
A copy of the "Futu[r]e Investment - A sustainable Investment for the power sector to save the climate" report can be downloaded at: http://www.greenpeace.org/energy-revolution-financing
1. The Energy [R]evolution Scenario is a real alternative to the IEA´s world energy outlook and the only practical blueprint for how to cut global energy related CO2 emission by 50% by 2050 to avoid dangerous climate change, while maintaining global economic growth. You can download it at www.greenpeace.org
2. With no change in energy policy, utilities will invest in more than 10,000 new fossil fuel power plants until 2030 worldwide. To supply those coal and gas fired power plants with fuel will add up between today and 2030 to US$18,6 trillion, compared to US$13,1 trillion in the Energy [R]evolution Scenario. This means fuel costs in the Energy [R]evolution Scenario are already 30% lower in the year 2030, by 2050; they are more than 70% lower.
3. While in most parts of the world, investment coasts for a power sector of 50% renewable energies (the Energy [R]evolution scenario) until 2030 will be higher than a fossil fuel based economy, in some parts of the world like Latin or North America, the investment costs of the E [R] scenario are even lower, reducing the global extra investment.