Yes. That would be our position. I think there is definitely consensus that's where we want to go. We want to get to net zero by 2050.
There certainly are better ways to do it, and there are more cost-effective ways to do it. One of our concerns is making sure that those considerations are integrated into the bill.
One thing that's very clear from the IEA's report, and from other accounting firms and others who have weighed in on this, is that while the costs of not transitioning are incredibly high and we need to make that transition, the reality is that the upfront capital needed to make an economic transition is also considerable. We're talking $5 trillion over the period. Some estimates are about $15 trillion in terms of new energy capacity and another $14 trillion in upgrades for grid modernization globally by 2030 alone.
The key component to that, of course, is that you need to be able to develop policy that allows for the investment in all of those projects. In many cases, it's upfront capital that gets realized later. It's sensitive to interest rates. There is a whole series of considerations that need to go into play to actually mobilize that capital.
I think that's what we're looking for, that policy certainty, to make sure the ambition is there but we're actually getting below 60,000 feet, down to the level that allows us to realize how we're going to create the momentum for that. There are going to be some net-zero pathways that are going to leave us positioned to do so, and others that I think won't.