![Key messages ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (18)
Similar to Green Stimulus Presentation Final
Similar to Green Stimulus Presentation Final (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Green Stimulus Presentation Final
- 1. How green is the stimulus package? - Renewable Energy Provisions Cai Steger, Energy Policy Analyst NRDC Center for Market Innovation August 27, 2009
- 6. Long term impact of Stimulus is expected to boost renewables deployment well above current EIA B.A.U. Source: “Renewable Energy Project Financing: Impacts of the Financial Crisis and Federal Legislation” http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/44930.pdf
Editor's Notes
- NJE-AAA123-20070318-
- NJE-AAA123-20070318-
- Additional comments: Three things are unique about the work compared to other abatement reports: 1. We have the broadest possible scope, i.e. all sectors, regions and gases. The IEA for instance, looks only at CO2 emissions (not at the other GHG gases) from energy usage (e.g. not forestry, agriculture, and process emissions from industry). 2. Many other reports do not take the cost curve approach, and therefore cannot compare the relative economic attractiveness of different abatement options 3. We are less consensus-driven than most of the international organizations, and can therefore draw more interesting/proactive conclusions The value of our work lies primarily in the comprehensive view that allow us to compare the order of magnitude of different opportunities We compare the work with a 16 th century geographical world map – the broad picture we believe is correct, but many individual measures will certainly develop differently from our model
- NJE-AAA123-20070318-
- Additional comments: Three things are unique about the work compared to other abatement reports: 1. We have the broadest possible scope, i.e. all sectors, regions and gases. The IEA for instance, looks only at CO2 emissions (not at the other GHG gases) from energy usage (e.g. not forestry, agriculture, and process emissions from industry). 2. Many other reports do not take the cost curve approach, and therefore cannot compare the relative economic attractiveness of different abatement options 3. We are less consensus-driven than most of the international organizations, and can therefore draw more interesting/proactive conclusions The value of our work lies primarily in the comprehensive view that allow us to compare the order of magnitude of different opportunities We compare the work with a 16 th century geographical world map – the broad picture we believe is correct, but many individual measures will certainly develop differently from our model
- Additional comments: Three things are unique about the work compared to other abatement reports: 1. We have the broadest possible scope, i.e. all sectors, regions and gases. The IEA for instance, looks only at CO2 emissions (not at the other GHG gases) from energy usage (e.g. not forestry, agriculture, and process emissions from industry). 2. Many other reports do not take the cost curve approach, and therefore cannot compare the relative economic attractiveness of different abatement options 3. We are less consensus-driven than most of the international organizations, and can therefore draw more interesting/proactive conclusions The value of our work lies primarily in the comprehensive view that allow us to compare the order of magnitude of different opportunities We compare the work with a 16 th century geographical world map – the broad picture we believe is correct, but many individual measures will certainly develop differently from our model
- Additional comments: Three things are unique about the work compared to other abatement reports: 1. We have the broadest possible scope, i.e. all sectors, regions and gases. The IEA for instance, looks only at CO2 emissions (not at the other GHG gases) from energy usage (e.g. not forestry, agriculture, and process emissions from industry). 2. Many other reports do not take the cost curve approach, and therefore cannot compare the relative economic attractiveness of different abatement options 3. We are less consensus-driven than most of the international organizations, and can therefore draw more interesting/proactive conclusions The value of our work lies primarily in the comprehensive view that allow us to compare the order of magnitude of different opportunities We compare the work with a 16 th century geographical world map – the broad picture we believe is correct, but many individual measures will certainly develop differently from our model
- Additional comments: Three things are unique about the work compared to other abatement reports: 1. We have the broadest possible scope, i.e. all sectors, regions and gases. The IEA for instance, looks only at CO2 emissions (not at the other GHG gases) from energy usage (e.g. not forestry, agriculture, and process emissions from industry). 2. Many other reports do not take the cost curve approach, and therefore cannot compare the relative economic attractiveness of different abatement options 3. We are less consensus-driven than most of the international organizations, and can therefore draw more interesting/proactive conclusions The value of our work lies primarily in the comprehensive view that allow us to compare the order of magnitude of different opportunities We compare the work with a 16 th century geographical world map – the broad picture we believe is correct, but many individual measures will certainly develop differently from our model