RPEspotælCE NCKING

** FtNu!.TIMATF DIMFT *=

Apr i l ,> 3, 1992

ORANDUM FOR DR. Mm pagy

M: Jonathan Wiener

Policy Counsel

R of Cost Estimat#8 of Limiting Greenhouse Gas

zou requested a Su-rary and m.1 .w- oe

. C 1Q P

.i qrr m-1 r

- F ( ) 31 1 C *' C ..] e } -, o | 4 3 . .

. h 1 1 d t

onn of. Us GDp from b cy to -1-0.6 ino Lorecasted GDP in 2000

hows highor c TS, around -91 ,

e Limated by the e Cost are

dDÁ 1 LZàtion is Mintained gI-OWth dS

2 °r cæ uv mso. c ue c ° 2°. and o+

reauction ee10. ma 1eve1n ny ° h such as a 201

st or cm in 2020. c ° c523uto 2.0-

ute næs, c.,en wahout me t u °° °"

Eng:nee:.ng stud:<a, shn

est unable a-,.ugt:cns d , hut are based on

Efr : 1er ' . t ..

Gif) 1 5 r. S g o -il h 9 ) Cou id ach ieve

T h n roc (Where re 040 n CO.

P00000132331
2

91Ve sore comparative perspective to the estimated

stabil1Zin9 US CO2 enissions by 1990 levels by 2000

1r q tron 0 1-2,09. Of GDP foregone by 2000, depending on the

o Today the US spends about 2% of GDP on all environmental

protection, which is projected to rise to 3% by 2000.

hr' Clear. Air Act Amend;rents of 1990 are expected to cost

arounci $20 billion per year, or I'.4i of GDP.

o Nordhaus est taaten the benefits to the US of preventino

an assumed 3 degree C rise in global nurface mean

temperature at around 0.26% of GDP through 2050 (not

account inq for lcw-probabilIty, hiqh-impact discontinuous

damd4°3 Ire" cl1rste change).

O Stabli1zing global forests (preventing further

derorestation) would achieve as much or more reduction in

globot CO2 er-¿Ssions au stabil izing DECD emissions of CO2

at 1990 levels by 2000, but at loss than 1/10 the global

co t, and with additional side benet its in blodiversit '

connervat ion .

... . , ..111 .et wren new and ..or ition o

o . Aaen·1a . . l t not en1.

.c overall cf *5 of the c;ran Air A t n other 1 ·-

n in baseline (na pollCY aC 1 HJ forecar.ts of c, p

rperf t rc.1 .ure of overa ll-beitur

exper.diturer on equipmcrt in:;tal led er

ated 2e.c· n, -, Meanwhile n

th n

ecantn fr  ̄r which e .c are uubtr ̄acted . n

! cr thö ret. +.lon In ec.·-nomic .c¡ j _ ppear t.o oc n it

P00000132332
CORRE

3

emissions might impose,

P00000132333
nRRESPOUDENCE TRACKING

n- OFCD ,1nd_FMF m0.del._romparisons

CO2 CDIGSlons fro th osal for a "target" is to hold

2000, "stabilizing" th bnergy sector to 1990 levels in the year

level permanently arte 2000 ons to no more than that

esttrater- t for their

through unt tor act i n

erinnions at 1990 levels by DOC

DP Loss if World Foss:] Fuel coa

-- L .ssion;. are.fícJd to 199u leveln__ptter 2000

24!$ 2020 po n ,

5 t a1) 1 1 7 e ('( )

- - . emi . ,lons by CVer y' country 99 1s by 000:

Manne-Richels

US 0.6 . 1, o 2 1

Other OECD o.4 . ... 2-4

China 1 6 - 1, 6

World 1 1 4-0 5.2

2.2 2.8 3.5

Edmonds-Reilly

Other OFCD o 3 ,

· 0 . / O . 9 m

hina

CFFFN i01c )

O. I o 3 0 4

othor OLcn o.7

Wux ; d

s yv m O , "m3tG of Neducinq

fil l'arch 1 Ch t ." Wtricted

revised per lac or "Other ÃEcos

World estimates read fra

The models show that stabili

unifor:n actions by overy countr IS Vid

of GDP in 2000, rising to 0.4-2.1 o o en 0-1-0.6%

P00000132334
PESPO GNCE RACKIN

»

Tht· Stanford Energy Modeling Fcrun (FMF 1902) performed

·2 Sintlar model comparison with B models (Including the three shown R

above: and found that ntabill/inq US emiculons at 1990 levels after

00 would impose a cost of 0.S-1.5% of GDP in 2020. This range is

omewhat higher than the range of C.1-1.0% in the OECD model

onparison. EMF also found that achiev1ng a 201 reduction from

990 levels by 2010 would cost 1.0-2.5% of GDP in 2020. [EMF 12,

Executive Sunmary" draft 2/12/9?, p. ii & Exhibit 1.)

In each rodel conpartuan, the medcls are standardized to

on:ron annurptions about basellne econonic growth

population growth, and fuel price prolections. In the EM.

co-par1non exercine, technology assumptions were also standardized.

In the OECD carparlson, the differences in costs across rodels

31hl y rei le(-t d1[ ference

b·1rml ine em;sq1ons growth assumed ( In bl11 inn tonn a

carbon): n.3.ellne worldwtde CO/ ertssion.·

CPLEN S.Dl5 10.f la 99H

o AEEI: ;1 ;*r year in Ednand-----Heilly and GREl 0.51 Fr

o ava i l ab i l a t y of "backstop" lower-emitting or non-emitting techno1 og l es .

· Ö±H les ust_02 DRI rr.o'jol,

(1) ITI-McGraw._..HLil (Jan. 1942) examined the coLL of

F 171ng OL( !) e'r 1ssgen,- n! CO2 at 198H leye].

redu r·7 Them or below the 1988 level by 2010 and 201 below the

988 2cvel by 0 U. :t laund:

c_e/ 010 po2n

US 0.3 3,5

Europe o- / 2.0 2 9

Aust ; a 1 1 a

Al1 OFCD o

ource: DF1, "F'enno:nic E!rectn 01 Usinq Carbon TaxeG to Rod

-anon D2°×1de Erinstons in Ma jor OEcD countt les" (Jan. .190

P00000132335
6

(2) The US C_ongressional Budget Office (CBol (August

tudied the impact on the US economy of unilaterally Irposing

0 per ton of carbon tax on fossil fuels, phaned in fron $10

on of carbon in 1991 and rising to $100 per ton b 2000. cBo d three rodein * O asness this tax: the DRI model, the Jorgenson

. odel, and the PCAEO nadel from DOF. Annuming that only the

posed this tax, CBo found:

AP-19J&99A¶LJ1y_ Vear % change in 2000 CO2 emissions

1221 N 2999 level comparedxin 1988 eyga

DRI 2 2 2 - 6

DGEM

PCAEO

+ 5

Source: CBO, "Carbon Charges as a Response to Global Warming:

the Effects of Taxing Fossil Fuels" (Aug. 1990), Tables 3. 5

and 6. Missing data not reported by CBO.

1he variety of emissions resultn reflects differences in

the adeln. The fx:FM ¿v t gonerdl-equil ibriurr mode! In which new

chnolo920s are erployed as soon as they become ec

onpatitive: It abstracts from tr<tnsition tires and costs and iherefore better suited to long-run equ111brium analysis than to

predicting re-tl changen in emissions and G?fP over tire CBO a

noted that imposing the tax suddenly, instead of phasinq it in ov

ten years, could raise the cost to 5% of GNp.

r.g the pqran.j'--Ho:11y model to !523kout to the

..,. unJ1 teral $100 tax would impone a

ovet . of oNP helow forecast baseline greath

he unilateral US tax would kee Us

ro ng only s1 ghtly above 198B levels through oso

reduce the thereafter, roughly approxí:nating "stabil tzat

the Eamonds-Reilly nodel run. (Jd., rig. /.)

Famond--Po lly 9Culel rup ( .1 in the

emiss;cnu trr.act would di f fe gn ). Hut CUn found the

Old 1 emlSGiQr ( dn

cor.centrationt- b oni y a doub nq of global co

3 years. A multilatrra $100 t

more), anj delay 10 b ng a c

.st apply nq the x acro-s a1[

P00000132336
ORPEspONDENCE ~¶ACKIN

¤§

o t equiring the same emissions target to

vary accordinq to t 5 °4421331°°"level to

trading would o rer nal cm t of control. Al lowing emissions

m ar flexibility.)

B-. Etteet on_ d crissLons of action t:y_oECD_a_Lone.

reduce glob CO2 eml ion- b C only stabilization policy would

2050- (OECD "Cost.- nly 11% from baseline growth by

31scussion," Bestricto . lonn: Main Issues for

to the f indinq by the CEA 042· Par- I .) This Is similar

"tssions of n 90 that stabillrinq OECD

n25 by about In e 91nM1 CO2 emissions in n eragency Task Fo or

.er- Cl trate Change A Prel

Table III. .) 1 inary Amsæn

projected lon arithmotic chanqes tron

r:etwren rP71ons tht! Wou d ract from world trade Interaction

such as UFCD. In particular FC

could reduco 103'11 fuel consu--pt In

ower the world price of to uel o countrien and thus

consurption elsewhere. ao e nemased

with the Edmondu-Reilly Pter 10) reports a run

aLout /n1 of the init i 1 15 etteet orr

oECD. Over the longer achieved within the

:niensive goodn could hift prNuction of rarbonFMF reports that this c -*c o d countrie- . stanford

Tact on qloba: em:ssionn "drop ort I the

.Hurrary," draf t 2 1 12, "Exec,

tat·211zat on would redt e ob om rs nn L

an an upper bound. must be taken

Few of the economi.c models

actual costs that would be tell in th a 90cd plcture of the

(1990) noted that if a $100 e transition period. Cso

phased In over ten yearn, the 1-2 GN co d amedt,-itely instead or

findin9 1©· Supported Ly the Wk at could rise to 5t. This

lorum (FMF 199 ) , which ímn't thì n9

tho saae cuculative emissionn out o o ld achieve

century as a 201 reduction frorr 1990 .n of the n t

at a JU-401 cost naving ovols by 2010, but

2/12/9', p. put another th ry" drait control policy, the higher th . ooner or the dooper the

Iknearly with the depth or onnot or tho co . r se moro than p

n part this

P00000132337
ESF FNr E ~M3IN3 7

ona

ref lects modet

echnoloqten ov r n ons about the availability of non-carbon

carbon tax decline t ey core more available, the cost of

5:qnificantly reduce it a co rol pollcy can thus

missions. O t ven for nir11ar effects on not

CBO (lemo)

phased-in tax on diff r r 10.%1 Irpact of the

ound large sales ries, us ng the DGEM mode'. It

30% and 20 atural gas production

transportar lon: crint Ing npect vely); chericals7

rachinery. rubber 6 plastics and

aboW) to ro ct r onu the DRI nodel and scenario (See 1(C)

ok Industry-by-:ndustry effecto nt impacts within the US. He

5 reglonally accordin to ) Edx and allocated Job

e ch rellon. He fouM t060 hare of that industry's oM In

ost in pA gY, LA, TX, CA cts by number of Jobs

Færcenta9© of ;ob-- lost In yy AL

at, MT, and No, , TX, OK, NM. KS, UT,

n unerp oy

. . une-P.oynent Le o Ine ur ou

hmet ic m th.nj e,t .. It . . a 1 1 a. a t , n p

to r-r withn n ustry to

rieu (F.9 var:3t :nnn r h

1x, c:-,mpet it ven . ener y rrix,

t y va ket These ant rant nr r 42nn ob Innnes.

ci:-- rat ...3 n h model found that

t ol.nc l!v.- h L . n A u

cted e dran en.

pe an . .ne or cant In aster

unt r le , nd 1 . - 6 n o

CD, "Cr.sts of p n 1 1.4) in

acn," .ptr n Isnues

n J Lani

lar ar.alyn.. t

e. r nat:n n...,.rgy .. r'.d Pank Indicaten that

P00000132338
"CORRESPONDENCE THA

lent CCj l lMS : caJ1*.uri ne-1 va r i at ions i n

-- . 4._cost.... O! control th_Inugh e -i lss ions t rad I nq

UniforE limitati

country nust meet th in which every

"ntabt ll2at lon 01 natior

marginal cost of 1 nS"), are inefficient because the

cost ent lutes abov s umed hons varies acroGS countries. The

countrien. Yet the n Ical action by al I

were sign1! Icant: In n of arginal costs acros countries

cowts varied over a fa tor o fr m the

avolder (China) s onn

o the highP5t-cost rmiss onS avolder (CECDcountries t p ed the costs of a uniform policy in which all

efficient policy in wh ch t e mos r d ime degree with a more

the marginal cost of abatement is I c ons are obtained where

mechanism could be de 1 ovest- Such an efficient

countries (rather than e by applying the same tax to all

different countries), or by llowing trade em si ns 1 wu t

_lawin e-triidizia m! i--- . fare .hr cunts of un;fo I . e t o red o nunt

t ic;ent ;·ci Iry to . . N rude crpioy .in Icr . cut h

! . Cont avirg- ̄· wer Filtond3-Re1 1y

n n

× Clot'1; undel. . donce

I T ? - Ef f .e:y·nt ('og,rch rr ivç- po

-UD4 al GUGR fron ho__ener91__sect..OI. no

el: by 010 usin on by 20 fro

di ef ] ) O Cdrbôn

1

P00000132339
"CORRESPONDENCE TRÁ G

10

tvalent and would inpose a total econonic cost of only dbout $10

2010. Ser Richard A. Bradley, Edward C. Watts

nited Stater 3 Set Greenhouse Gas Eq1cjlir2nn_2r1 the

.. 2ne 2T: Eneray Responses at 8.10-8.12 (L5 Dept

nergy, o e of E.nvironmental Analycin, Sept. 1991). Hence

ven When constralned to act only within the energy sector

roadening from CO2 to all GHGs reduces cor.ts by about 71⁄4.

Thln comparison must be taken an 111ust rative, since it relles

an GWp .actors for the CHGs baned on the 1990 IPCC Report and

includes low-cout CFC reductionns at their full direct GWP he

ca¬parison would alco ditter in diiterent countries.

D5LlLGLSdi9hAQ

Broadening beyond the energy sector to a full net GHG

emissions approach, including tree planting and agricultural

efforts, can reduce costs further.

Continuinq the above analysi..;, DOE few wt g.,.

hr Gnv La× and in addit inn allowing d refund for refor©5tallon

.act ivities that sequester CO2 would lower the totdl cost of

reducing US emissions by 20% fro:n 1990 levels by 2010 to about $6-

la billion in 2010 -- over 901 less than the CO2-only, ener -on1

Policy. Bradley et al· DOE at H l' A

- qain, these fiquren should Le t ken only to ;1:Ustrate the 11ke y WW of

-hey depend in part upon the IPr.r's 1990 cwp f 1% h1

belnq recalculated.

An inr,tructive 111untration of the cost advantaqes of a

corprehenolve approach is provided for India by the World Bin);

Warid Devolupment GPport, forthcoming 99i a

about 60% of the US CHG emissionS portflollo is in c0 emi o

or India r,ok is in Cil4 onissions. The World Bank

that in India the marginal cost of cultír CH

Itan ÍS lbt -nal'llna I COsl of rilt( 4 eminston is h gher

that Tr.dian cH4 eminLions can onl'' be 1"lons, o the theory

r cut by rentr;eling r

dalry farminq. The bank flod

errlst-lons by ?ùt and nrparately cut CH4 e lunar t

ter =ere 9eparate to

htqher than if Ind had he flex ty to I lmil t

inrQugh } Ln ledSL-cost -lX o[

approach . omprehenr, ive

P00000132340
" CoRRESPONDENCE TRÁhh e o

11 § 2

9-m_RUL DAL_Rest_an_a_1ygg

that tree lent (Environmental Defense Fund, 199u) find

emissions: tree plantin t e low cost options to l init net

would cost on the ord r f e Conservation Reserve Prngram (cup

compared to $5.73 for o S3.48-65.49 per ton of co? remos.cd

switchin9- A similar est® e Y conservation and $4-4H for rue

& Richards (usps 199) wh88 e for tree planting comes from Moulton

tree planting in the NS at Per on of CO2 a- a4ded by

that certain coal.bed CH4 a wt SS. Dudek & LeBlanc (379 : repar

near or below $5 per ton of CO2- n.iques have a mary na; e

equ valent avoided (using 21 .·1) ,

emissions av a e nestimates the marginal cost of global

CO2, CH4, CFCs, and tree p a t 2"1 from 1990 levels can be achiev d

$2/ton carbon; this reduction i of u un

cut an additional 15% f a entirely the phasecut o e n

marginal cost of $11 total reduction, would h

phasecut, with some of the oth a reduction is still CFC

addressed. After the 25% red et d sinks beginning to be

Since CFCs were thought in 1990 t e rapidly,

forcing additions, excluding CFC ut 2M of net scientific reports in 1991 may mean that the basî8 of the new

at the point of rapidly increasin we are currently sitting

the marginal cost curve), 9 nel costs (the "elbow" in

n t a :.: · n r s t n i n d a 1 - n. : t yp c

ticos in en,. rt n are

rf . . h r tri-y a n t·1× .ird

..] ur red e. whethor grmh

vc:stren* ta - nemme axe., n 042 ,_ t r n t he

8

1

P00000132341
CORRESPONDENCE TPÀdÕÑG*

analysis 2ndicate th

the Invest··· 042 d re.lucing corporate incore taxen or enlarg:nq

growth bu+ ax credit would provide a greater spur to economic

federaÍ der e h of these two is best is not clear. Nedue:ng the ,

consumpt on r ute × 's, by contrast , would spur

°conoc le co t s of n of f set less of the

induc n9 in otton to n ace e hose costn by

ch the Federal Reser/e Bank resnonds b

nq conor:c gro h) umnary," draft

9 o h th se stud es is he re uction n the tax urden on abo P 1, Dpt the carbon tax sel labor or capital i d u tax burdens on

maintained other enues need to be

successful and economica eff cient than a o

v- Ennn_emuum

Ieu ralning eP1M510nu but tt

introducing new techno'-olled 'ha* t

Thene "engineering" si.udies neludr_. t n

Asænnment, Changing by m-'--Ire (1991) . of lechnology

Acadery of e ences p Fl! of the Nat lonà1

.,.... - -u InIl catwns o Gr enhoune w

(2sel): and the recent stu arang

NGO groupn includinq the A1 - 991), by

conceIned scientists. c.nergy and the Union of

These Studier typ2cally how 042h t

f Cd.it't lonS Can be chta ine . S5 LCnn

12nding I'- based on ausurptlan, of exte r193. Thin

upcc tic technologier-, or othe r u t

technologten Into actud2 una le b

adapt n-1 ex2 n a n t

value en consurer preferences or behav or

Me a nwh ; l e , Lnc. ecor4-..m a e nod .

dc include loW-CCGt and neuti..'e¬ t d above typically

bdSelanen, and yet they 33Mieu in their

P00000132342
coaasspogoguca y

13

emissions? N

successfuÃ. o Policy, or just a slight nudge, would presumably be

emissions w uld dy r8Ported that without policy action US CO2

"moderate" scena 1987 levels by 2015. Under a

options, US CO2 o a set of individually identified technology

2015. A "tou h'88 881ons c523ldbe held to 15% above 1987 levels in

emissions to 29% 09y oPtions would hold energy use

reduction availabl evels in 2015, with another 7%

"moderate" scenario cou d be chie ed t n t

savings in fuel cost savings because

costs. The "tou ha 3Dd oPerating

of $20 billion aÂd a o of S bi 1

saved to 1-8% lost f on per year, or between 0.24

( Feb. 1991) , "Summa " PP 9 12 Og by .Decrees

y ts $45 per barrel at that t t

would rise $15 billi he estimated cost

"moderate" Scen&rio)

co emissi°®n's''0"°J" models, heid1n,

1.0-1.3% by 2015 in the EPA mode 1Ner GNP about

model. E pp- 11-12. Y y 2015 in the EPRI

;der.ll f ed im'hnolouy nrt ;an n a- Individually

. . n e ed t ha t t hc. I a t

- d t h t s dr.t

T

P00000132343
"CORRESPONDENCE TRÃ g

14

OOE analysis indicates that the AEC predict ion depends or:

the a°.surption of a more rapid sectoral shift in the US economy

y 1rom manufacturing and toward services than is assumed by the

AEC also aCGumes rapid pentrat ion of renewables into

tricity supply, anount ing to 30-50? Of supply by 2000 to 70-901

In several decades. AEC pred1cts a drop in primary energy

ansurpt ion at 55-57 quadn from baseline forecant by 2030: DOE

leports that if it had used nintlar ànr.urptions in itn NES

inalyses, its energy savings prolection would have been 46 quads

only 4-11 quads lower than AEc.

AEC also crits trow its pra ject.ions the "rebaund" in

connumptlan that occurs when more unergy-e:11cient techr.ology

lowers the marginal cost of using the technology and consumers

consequent iy use the technology more. Hence IsEC's energy nav1ngs

prolect lons are nonewhat overstated. Further, AMc assumes a CAFE

stand.ird at 75 mpg and a 30.50 gal lon gasoline tax.

AEC's "cost savings" clain depends on the use of a 34

.innue discount rate, which .3 Lar below actual d1©count rat

empi'.>yed by real businessen and consumers the une of the lo

.11±,cuunt rate naken far-o*! fuel price navings s,.em ror-e lele

AEL luo states that $290 t allion per year in now energy and

env2ronment.11 taxes would be need to st.ibil e CU cmlsslunn: this

t-ix would urriout tedly 1-Fose couts on the I S economy, but those

costs are not tctantified in the report (perhaps they an e

in an une>.p2aired cost ftqure) .

.1% [U le Dd 1 l' o 0.1 s i j r e , ,, ,

*. I.er Me s·.arr'·-. 1:1c-nt 1 1g-d :n th(- US Ac or a proc 3 are also

. ..Í J :, ; r ' ( - n q ',. Ii e e r 040p . . .

.r+, n raram·;. Tlielt t.heory 15 h . Id ing nt rmat ;on

prmrar--, . emicn.. n - might I.,- d t.o 1 e .

.__. . on:-.. :1 A turned o o te

P00000132344
15 8

constraining emissions

o

<n

P00000132345
I

&

16

v1. J iluptratin_g_ the uses of cost f1cures 8

A. MP9nnq benefits and costs to the US.

The benefits of limiting CHG cmissions are extremely hard

to estimate. Making nu:rerous assumptions, Nordhaus (1991)

ontimates the d.mage to the US of a lo C rise In te;rperature

associated with a doubling of CO2-aquivalent concentrations at

about 0.?6% or net national innone. Cline (1941) alques that an

temperature risen further costs may increase significantly,

especially if there are important dincontinuities nuch as changes

in deep arran circulation. Neither the Nordhaus nor Cl ine

rat1raten o! damage take into account the new finding by Karl

f 1991) that erp1rical ly all of the 0.30C averago surface warring

observed over the last 50 yearn has been an increase in rintrum

(nightt imo and wantertime) rather than max1r.uir temperature,

suggenting that warn:nq may reduce not increanc cllrrate Strosses.

These damage e..i trates con be conpared to the cost

est Inat©S of emissions avoidance. According to the OFrD nodel

corparison, stabil;zin7 US CU? onissions at 1990 leveln after 2000

would co t the U5 cconomy O.1-0 6i of GDP from basel ine forecasted

ln 2nhÍì according 70 the DR1 nodel, the costs could be more

ke 1- A. costs libe as stabilization is maintained, to a.1-1,5g

of GDP by ?n?n, and n,4-2. li of GDP by 0 'D. For this

I lustration, assure an en? Inate of about 1.07 of cop,

Stab.'. .. nq ..or;d erlssions at 19 level, in von will

n -ent rat ionn '-top the committied rise in terre!.iture. n

..r em i r. nnn a t 1 9 u:1 1 ov.-. I s by ? n 0 0 wou 1 d 1 et co

er t rat ionn r se to í.u:i pp.¬. by 2100 (n

n . H ', . i ̄ t ab I nq OEcD r 1 r. s i c

t o.l1 re iu. e gic.ba; . i tons Ly. .

aa.tunt f r.]c dintent .nuo :s dañaq0H et rate han

On '-17 lar l inen, No p d no

. . y nyp i . non for war ld rF ann contro : no e

P00000132346
o o

C e t y no 50 temperature. He assumes policy is pursued

costs. He finds: Y 8Wo88 Countries with varying rarg:na

No control

"OPtimal" control +o 9

- SoC 1imit _4

DIAEL12EE LÆl a l 4; z i n g

levels after o would ed .e ng OECD emissions at u

from baseline in 2025 (unad-) t Sions by about ,e2

emitting-activities to other cou t

In the US that would be about $50-10

#CONay grows from $5 trillion i Per year (as the Us

The total cost to the OECD would b to $10 trillion in 2025)

cautious, say a few billion twice that amount. To be

$25 billion per year by in the 28 Y W0s, growing to

per year in 2010-2025- That woul cade 2000-2010, to $100 billion

of around 52 trillion over the diScounted) total

thereafter), period (and continue growing

..un; i a+. iv.. .-, . maled to ontr li>utr. abou

P00000132347