You are currently viewing our desktop site, do you want to download our app instead?
Moneyweb Android App Moneyweb iOS App Moneyweb Mobile Web App
Join our mailing list to receive top business news every weekday morning.

Countries need to invest $55trn to reach emissions target

And contain warming of the planet.
Image: Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Global economies will need to invest as much as $55 trillion through the middle of the century to meet an emissions goal and contain warming of the planet, according to a report by a group of executives from energy-intensive companies including ArcelorMittal SA, BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

Reaching net-zero carbon emissions target by 2050 will require large-scale electrification of industries, buildings and transport, as well as the use of hydrogen and biofuels in areas that can’t be electrified, according to the Energy Transitions Commission. Using less energy to produce more and recycling material will aid the efforts. Building renewable power plants will take up a bulk of the estimated investment.

More frequent and severe natural calamities across the world have heightened the need to contain climate change and end the use of coal and other fossil fuels while expanding clean energy. That’s forcing some of the biggest fossil fuel users to recast their energy mix and adopt greener sources of power.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a 2018 report that reaching net-zero CO2 emissions by mid-century will be key to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Humanity is on course to miss that mark, with the World Meteorological Organisation saying there is a 20% chance that global temperatures will breach the limit in at least one of the next five years.

The decarbonisation strategy will involve phasing out of coal-fired plants, according to the report. Those that remain should be used as a peaking or a seasonal back-up to renewable power and should be retrofitted with carbon capture and storage.

China, India

The report highlighted some challenges on the way.

China, the world’s biggest coal user, “is not yet on a clear path towards a net-zero economy and new coal investments are continuing despite evidence that renewables are now highly competitive on a new-build basis in most of China’s provinces,” it said.

The nation can become a fully developed, rich economy with net-zero emissions by 2050 by rapidly deploying renewable power projects and reducing its dependence on coal, according to the report. The country needs to double annual investments in solar and as much as quadruple investments in wind energy, along with accelerating use of clean energy in industries and residential heating.

India, the second biggest coal user, is likely to see consumption of the fuel peak between 2027 and 2030, before gradually sliding down, Ajay Mathur, a co-chair at Energy Transitions Commission, said in a phone interview. The nation, which currently produces nearly 65% of its electricity from coal, can do without building new coal power plants, as its existing coal fleet is under-utilised and can be ramped up to meet any increase in demand, he said.

Yet, lack of reliable electricity remains a key challenge for the country, said Mathur, who also heads the New Delhi-based The Energy and Resources Institute.

© 2020 Bloomberg


Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in to comment.


The Chinese must be very obtuse people. All that investment in coal power when renewables (made in China) are so highly competitive. Or maybe… just another lie from Bloomberg, masters of disinformation.

With a growing political popularity to Socialism globally I high hardly think that we will be able to meet any of the targets.

We need to have our economics geared towards Free Markets as opposed to a Planned Economy.

Whilst we have only mined 0.00000000001% of the world’s ground mass resources which is by no means even scratching the surface however,
we do need to make the methods more environmentally friendly and this technological innovation and advancement will only come about through a Free Market System.

Countries with the highest per capita pollution need to not only change but correctly price in their pollution into the various products which they make.


Indeed. As the disastrously, horrendously wrong pandemic models have shown us, there is absolutely no reason to have any trust whatsoever in these Voodoo, pseudo-scientific climate hoax models.

And we are back to global warming after scaring the living daylight out of people with the deadly covid-19 pandemic.

What would the conservatives do without climate change and virus conspiracy theories? Deny the moon landing?

When you know fit triathletes that died from corona you might change your tune.

I have a lot of solar and I am adding more and I am putting up a very large battery hybrid. Is it because I am a tree hugging vegan socialist moron, or is it because it is cheaper and more reliable than pure Eskom? I am keeping a 1/5th of before grid connection only because it is slightly cheaper than using diesel. In 4 to 5 years council will cost me same as diesel and by then I can take the entire factory off grid with a fuel cel or much more solar and batteries.

This is a 600kA factory, not a house.

And no, I am good at math

The initial “scientific” models predicted 300,000 deaths in SA. There’s your real conspiracy, in black and white. You did see those predictions, did you not? Any comment on those exorbitant, fake numbers used to cow the public into obeying the Party?

You guys always yank the dam from underneath the duck!

Just because kopdoek was on her mission does not make for global virus conspiracy. If you get the virus I hope you have my situation not the bad version. I actually believe half of SA has had this thing.

But correlating the virus to undeniable climate change is pure madness.

You cannot sent the facts of climate change. You can believe it is not man-made if you choose to. Opinions and all that.

What you cannot do is stick your head in the mud and ignore that you can in September 2020 run your factory better with self-generation. If you want to suck on whatever Eskom and your council choose to offer you : suffer baby, suffer

Ultra-fit marathon runners regularly suffer cardiac problems from another virus too (fact.) It’s called the common cold virus. Let’s lock down the world forever.

Given that you’re so good at math, you should surely be able to tell us precisely by how much the virus scaremongers’ initial predictions of three hundred thousand deaths were out? I’d say by a factor of twenty or so. There you have your real conspiracy. No so-called right-wingers required, just the facts absolutely confirming a very real conspiracy, designed to assert Party control over the population.

You yourself tied the virus to the climate conspiracy in your very first sentence. Also not sure what you mean by “you cannot sent (sic) the facts of climate change.” If you mean I cannot dispute the fact that the climate has been changing since the origin of the earth, yes, you’re right. Am I disputing that the public has to stump up trillions in extra tax due to some Voodoo pseudo-science which alleges that extra taxes will solve the problem? You betcha.

Johan you may not be very good at maths and that’s okay. I have been trying to find a proof to the Riemann hypotheses for years and failed. Your logic needs polishing, though. You were the one equating moon landing conspiracies with climate change and Covid nonsense.

Science is about evidence and testable hypotheses. If the facts disagree with your hypotheses then your hypothesis is wrong. Plain and simple. That is the way science works. The Covid example and global warming re branded as climate change is a very good example of this. These socialist parasitic bullies, funded by taxpayer money, have been predicting doomsday for half a century in the name of science. All for the purpose of extorting more money from the public. Their litany of abject failures tells me one thing: the science is rotten. Instead of abandoning their hypotheses, they change the evidence. Fraud, plain and simple. Fraud that you are defending.

Of course climate change is undeniable one just has to study geology to know this. One thousand years ago Greenland was green during the Medieval warm period. The Vikings grew cops and trees grew where there is now permafrost. The Vikings were driven out by the cold of the little ice age or Maunder Minimum. Vineyards in Europe were 400m higher. About 50 papers confirm this was a global phenomenon. Even Makapansgat stalactites isotope ratios confirm the MWP. During the Roman warm period Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants – not possible today. Romans grew grapes in Yorkshire. The Minoan warm period was about 4°C warmer than today. For 90 per cent of the Holocene since the Pleistocene ice age (ca. 11700 BP), the earth was warmer than now.

Anyone who denies climate change is denying the geological and historical evidence. The climate has changed throughout 4.56by of earth history. Or are you simply setting up a straw man?


CEI is a small Washington lobbyist run by Trump’s EPA transition sidekick and funded by energy companies in the main.

Compare their peer reviewed research to the international panel… or, find me their substantial reviewed research?

As to the topic, I am going ⅔ solar energy and it will cost me FAR less than staying on load-shredded a Eskom & Council coal energy. If that makes me a sucker – fine by me. I still saved half a million a year.

Johan. I did mention your logic needs fixing. Your first fallacy is shooting the messenger (CEI). This is a form of argumentum ad hominum. It is not relevant who compiled the document, rather the contents thereof.

Your second fallacy is argumentum ad verecundiam.

Its just a sick money making scam.

What emissions are let off trying to get to meet emissions targets?

End of comments.





Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company: