百家乐怎么玩-澳门百家乐官网娱乐城网址_网上百家乐是不是真的_全讯网888 (中国)·官方网站

As the economic toll of wildfires, floods, droughts, and sea-level rises grow, so does the concern about the risk of climate change. Government, industry, and investors are increasingly trying to factor the cost of climate change into their decisions. On the one hand, the social cost of climate change under the business as usual case is simply too large as compared to the cost of mitigation through e.g., renewable energy, making aggressive climate change mitigation look like a no brainer. On the other hand, the actual level of effort being made to mitigate climate change cannot explain the seemingly obvious benefits of aggressive low-carbon transition. In this lecture, I will discuss three on-going research projects that aims to better understand the discrepancy. First, I will discuss the renewable energy investment needed for decarbonizing plastics and chemicals. My collaborators and I developed a detailed chemical process simulation model that integrates engineering-level data for 350 chemical processes by each of the 6 global regions. We estimate that decarbonization of plastics and chemicals requires as much as 16 PWh/y of electricity, whereas the current global renewable electricity generation from wind and solar combined makes only 1.2 PWh/y. Second, I will discuss the results of an on-going study on the additional cost burden to the U.S. rate payers of electricity under decarbonization scenarios based on dynamic electricity grid mix simulation, Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) model of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Third, I will talk about another ongoing study on the low-carbon transition costs and geopolitical structure of winners and losers of climate mitigation based on stranded assets and social costs of carbon under various scenarios. These series of analyses elucidate why bold actions against climate change mitigation is not happening despite the economic viability and clear net benefits of climate mitigation. Our analysis highlights the need of a mechanism under which cost and benefit burdens across generations and geographies are more evenly distributed in order to mobilize expeditious actions against climate change.