Brian Parkin writes on a new report that says cheaper solar and wind installations has whacked $10 trillion off the cost of addressing climate crisis. You can read the report here:
The cost of reaching global climate goals is falling rapidly as wind and solar prices plummet and policy makers push electrification as the main tool to cut pollution, the International Renewable Energy Agency said.
The group known as Irena revised down its estimates for global investments needed by 2050 in clean energy to meet targets under the Paris Agreement on climate change. The Abu Dhabi-based group now says $115 trillion is needed, down from $125 trillion a year ago, reflecting lower costs to build wind and solar farms.
The global energy shift needs significant investments but they will more than pay off in curbing emissions and in health and environmental benefits, Irena’s new Director-General Francesco La Camera said by email. Green energy costs are falling rapidly, he said.
The agency cut its estimate for the additional costs needed to meet Paris Accord goals by 40 percent in the last year, according to the report. [...]
TOP COMMENTS • HIGH IMPACT STORIES • OVERNIGHT NEWS DIGEST
QUOTATION
“The secret of the demagogue is to appear as dumb as his audience so that these people can believe themselves as smart as he is.”
~~Karl Kraus, Half-Truths and One-and-a-Half Truths: Selected Aphorisms, 1976
TWEET OF THE DAY
BLAST FROM THE PAST
On this date at Daily Kos in 2007—How to Spend a Billion Dollars:
For the 2008 cycle, the presidential candidates are expected to raise and spend a billion dollars in pursuit of the White House, and—based on the recent numbers—well more than half of that money will be spent by Democrats. While that number screams of the need to reform our system of elections, it also shows an unmatched opportunity to change the game in a more fundamental way. Democrats have already shown they're capable of making better use of the Internet than their counterparts on the right, but most of that money is likely to end up going into the bottomless maw of the traditional media.
Face it, there really is such a thing as media saturation. The second flyer from a candidate is less effective than the first. The third commercial less noticeable than the second. The fourth visit from volunteers is more irritation than enticement. The fifth phone call is more likely to generate rage than a positive response. There really is a point of diminishing returns, and it takes far less than the kind of numbers being tossed around this season to get there. A hundred million dollar campaign may be more effective than a ten million dollar effort, but it's far from ten times as effective. At some point, each dollar pushed into a traditional media effort is about as effective as construction funding in Iraq.
Besides, if the Democratic candidates spend their millions on traditional advertising, much of that money will be going back to media conglomerates who want their campaigns to fail. Democratic dollars will flow into the pockets of CEOs who will be on the "Ranger" list for the Republican candidates. Democratic funds donated by millions of contributors, will end up as commercials that pay the salaries of Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh.
I'd like to propose that Democratic candidates for president demonstrate their boldness by taking a different approach to their campaign spending this year. I want them to give it away. Not all of it, mind you. Just 10%.
On today’s Kagro in the Morning show: Greg Dworkin, who’s not shy but is retiring, brings a mix of polling & international intrigue. Joan McCarter has this year's nominees for Most Dangerous Man in DC. Trump to spike Office of personnel Management, because he's so awesome at personnel.