Vattenfall, a major European energy company, has determined it would cost 0.6 per cent of global GDP to keep climate change in check, assuming the world was consistent and methodical in applying existing technologies for greenhouse-gas abatement. The findings were presented in Berlin last week. “Vattenfall has produced a comprehensive survey of all the measures that can be taken around the world to curb climate change,” according to a company release. “The ambition is to demonstrate that emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere can be reduced to a level that makes it possible to limit the global temperature increase to 2 degrees Centigrade.”

The company has created a “Climate Impact Abatement Map” that shows how the cost of limiting concentration of greenhouse gases by 2030 to 450 ppm (parts per million) could cost less than 1 per cent of total world GDP, “on condition that all the identified potential is exploited.” The data, it says, shows considerable hidden possibilities in industrialized countries, particularly with regard to energy efficiency initiatives. This would come at a “negative cost” because the measures applied would finance themselves through energy savings — something often lost in the economic-death-sentence argument.

A recent report commissioned by Ceres and the Natural Resources Defense Council does a good job of arguing this negative-cost scenario (actually, it’s a net-benefit scenario) with a focus on the state of Texas. “The efficiency potential described in this report would provide $49 billion in economic benefits over the next 15 years, resulting in lower electricity bills for customers and reduced spending on generation and transmission capacity by utilities,” the report concluded. “These benefits would be generated by an $11 billion investment in proven programs and policies focused on more efficient appliances, heating and cooling systems, and office equipment and improved building codes, resulting in net benefits to the Texas economy of $38 billion.” This, it points out, compares favourably to a proposal to spend $10 billion on 11 coal-fired generating plants. And that’s not taking into account the greater environmental benefits for Texas.

But back to Vattenfall. It should be pointed out that the European company is a founding member of the Combat Climate Change (3C) Initiative, which revealed its existence on January 11. Other members include Duke Energy, GE, and Siemens. Their mandate is to “influence the post-Kyoto process by demanding a global framework supporting a market-based solution to the climate change issue.” Click here for Joel Makower’s take on this growing corporate concern.

This discussion is all very timely. Despite those who continue to argue that human-caused climate change is a figment of our imagination (the DeSmogBlog does a great job of pointing them out), we heard last week that the United Nations scientific body that assesses climate change — specifically, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which includes around 2,000 scientists from around the world — will soon report that the situation is getting worse and, well, we are the ones causing it. My Toronto Star colleague Peter Gorrie had the scoop by obtaining a summary of the panel’s draft report. According to the summary, “It is very likely that (man-made) greenhouse gas increases caused most of the globally average temperature increases since the mid-20th century.” The official report is expected to be released in Paris on Feb. 2. Click here for a New York Times follow on Gorrie’s story.

What I find interesting about both the report on Texas and the Vattenfall study is that they’re not calling, necessarily, for investment in R&D in new technologies. They’re saying that existing technologies can do the trick today if we actually got around to doing something. It’s why in Canada, the Harper government’s recently announced investments in clean-energy R&D may seem impressive, but it could just as easily be viewed as a delay tactic.