Sign up for our daily briefing
Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.
Stay on top of the latest market trends
Subscribe to Axios Markets for the latest market trends and economic insights. Sign up for free.
Sports news worthy of your time
Binge on the stats and stories that drive the sports world with Axios Sports. Sign up for free.
Tech news worthy of your time
Get our smart take on technology from the Valley and D.C. with Axios Login. Sign up for free.
Get the inside stories
Get an insider's guide to the new White House with Axios Sneak Peek. Sign up for free.
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Want a daily digest of the top Denver news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver
Want a daily digest of the top Des Moines news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines
Want a daily digest of the top Twin Cities news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities
Want a daily digest of the top Tampa Bay news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay
Want a daily digest of the top Charlotte news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte
Putting U.S. carbon emissions on a steep downward path would cost plenty of money. But waiting to act is way more expensive, a new analysis out this morning concludes.
Driving the news: The research firm Energy Innovation modeled two policy scenarios for reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, a common target for limiting the amount of future warming.
- One scenario starts aggressive efforts now, the other that waits until 2030.
- "The longer we wait, the more drastic the [emissions] cuts — and associated costs — will be," the firm notes.
How it works: The analysis looks at changes in capital and operational costs in the country's energy system, as well as fuel spending, as a way to represent the costs of policy packages.
- Their metric aims to capture net expenditures by government, consumers and industry in areas including power infrastructure, vehicle purchases, heat equipment and more.
- The two scenarios explored spending and policy costs in areas like fuel economy and zero-carbon power standards, battery deployment, building efficiency, industrial fuel changes and more.
The big picture: The cumulative costs of the 2030 scenario are 72% higher on a net present value basis.
- "In addition to accumulating higher costs, delaying climate action requires astounding rates of clean energy deployment and buildout of manufacturing capacity."
- Other costs stem from "stranded assets," the report finds. Continued build-out of fossil fuel-powered industrial plants and equipment, followed by a seismic shift starting in 2030, means "we will need to retire much more polluting equipment before the end of its functional life. And that isn’t cheap."
What we're watching: The Biden administration plans to ask Congress for lots of money to boost the deployment of low-carbon energy and climate-friendly infrastructure.
- It is also planning a suite of new executive regulations aimed at cutting emissions.
Of note: The analysis and chart above is only about costs. It does not consider benefits from speeding up the energy transition, such as the health effects of air pollution abatement.