Five Climate Successes Since “An Inconvenient Truth”
Originally published on The Climate Reality Project.
Here’s something to smile about. Check out five of our favorite climate successes in the past decade.
Ten years ago, An Inconvenient Truth brought the issue of climate change out into the open and into mainstream culture like never before. People began asking tough questions about our climate and wanted to know what they could do to make our planet a safer, healthier place for us all. And 10 years later, we can see the results.
Last week, we shared in this blog post what’s changed for our climate, for better or for worse, over the past decade. But with so many climate successes to choose from, we felt they deserved their own story. So today on the 10th anniversary of An Inconvenient Truth, here are five of our favorite moments of progress the world has made in solving climate change.
China – the World’s Largest Carbon Emitter – Stepped Up
You know how US fossil fuel interests used to stall pro-climate policies saying, “Well what about China? It doesn’t matter what we do if they don’t do anything.”
Today, they’re scrambling for a new line. You see, China is ahead of the game when it comes to deploying renewable energy and working to solve climate change. Last summer, China made one of the strongest national commitments to climate action leading up to the UN’s COP 21 climate conference, pledging to expand total energy consumption from non-fossil fuel sources to around 20 percent by 2030. It will require China to deploy roughly 800–1,000 gigawatts of non-fossil fuel power by 2030, or about the total current electricity generation capacity in the US. This commitment solidified the progress China has made in recent years in combatting its dangerous air pollution problem.
As the world’s largest carbon emitter since 2006, China making a commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and using more and more clean energy is a major breakthrough. And if China can get serious about cutting emissions and embracing renewables, other nations are going to have to follow suit.
The Growth of Renewable Energy and Clean-Energy Jobs
Renewable energy has surged in the past decade, with the cost of clean energies like solar and wind falling each year. And as the price continues to fall, demand continues to increase, which means the industry needs to expand to meet it. The result? Thousands of new jobs added each year.
Let’s look at the solar industry. There are already more than 705,000 jobs in solar energy in the US, employing Americans in all 50 states. The industry added over 35,000 jobs in 2015 alone, and is showing no sign of slowing any time soon with solar companies projected to add over 30,000 new workers in 2016.
The wind industry isn’t far behind. The US Energy Department predicts there will be more than 600,000 wind-related jobs by 2050, according to its Wind Vision Report, with high growth expected in fields like manufacturing, transportation, and offshore wind. By the end of 2014, the US had more than 73,000 jobs in wind energy, and the state of Texas alone employed over 17,000 people in wind-related jobs in 2014.
Pope Francis United People from All Faiths to Protect Our Planet
In 2015, Pope Francis made headlines when he released his landmark encyclical, Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home. In the letter – written not just for Catholics, but for people of all faiths – he stressed some of the most important issues facing the world today, including climate change, the environment, poverty, and the world economy.
The pope followed up Laudato Si’ with a historic visit to the US where he met with top government officials. Here, he echoed themes of his encyclical in public statements and private conversations and made the case for growing our economies through clean energy and new technologies. Above all else, Pope Francis urged the world to come together to take immediate action to protect our planet and allow people from all walks of life to flourish.
World Leaders Came Together to Reach the Paris Agreement
In the years following An Inconvenient Truth, world leaders attempted to reach a consensus about how to solve climate change throughout various global summits, but never truly succeeded. That is, until last December, when world leaders came together at the UN’s COP 21 climate conference in Paris. The world watched as leaders from 195 countries negotiated for two weeks and finally reached a global agreement – known as the Paris Agreement – to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the primary factor driving climate change.
World leaders formally signed the Paris Agreement this Earth Day, marking a turning point in the movement for climate solutions by setting a long-term goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. This is the most ambitious target ever formalized at this level – and a really big deal.
A Global Movement for Solving Climate Change Began
An Inconvenient Truth sparked a new kind of movement – one where people all over the world wanted to know how they could get involved in helping solve climate change. People realized their everyday actions had an impact on our planet, and that they could be part of the solution instead of contributing to the problem.
Part of this movement involved a new group of activists called the Climate Reality Leadership Corps. These activists – called Climate Reality Leaders – are people from every level of society working to educate and inspire others in their communities about the climate crisis. Shortly after the film’s release, former US Vice President Al Gore trained the very first group of Climate Reality Leaders in Carthage, Tennessee in 2006. Since then, the Climate Reality Leadership Corps has trained thousands of citizens in 135 countries around the world.
If you want to learn more about becoming a Climate Reality Leader, sign up for information here.
Let’s Recommit to Climate Action
Yes, we’ve seen a lot of great progress like the examples above over the past 10 years. But there’s still more to do to ensure we stay on the path to ending climate change and building a safe, healthy future for our planet. First and foremost, we need to ensure our leaders fulfil their commitments in the Paris Agreement to cut greenhouse gases. Pledge now to recommit to climate action and help us make certain world leaders live up to the promises they made in Paris.
Reprinted with permission.
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book
Our Latest EVObsession Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
#6: The cost of wind and solar have decreased by 80% since 2006 due to technology improvement, economies of scale and moving down the learning curve. All the naysayers that said renewables wouldn’t even rise above background noise in global energy markets by the 2030’s have yet to eat their words, but it should happen any day now.
#7: The USA has slashed emissions by 10% – 15% even while growing its economy. This disproves the myth that economic growth and environmental protection are incompatible.
#8: Electric car prices and performance are miles ahead of what industry analysts predicted in 2006. The market is poised to enter the next phase of the “S” curve as EVs move from the early adopter phase and into explosive market growth.
We’re definitely moving to the next phase, but adoption won’t go vertical until we see electric cars eclipsing gas cars in price and performance.
Which brings us to the Model 3 announcement and battery costs mentioned in the earnings call a couple weeks later. True enough that it’s vaporware until it’s not, but very encouraging for sure.
The model 3 and cars like it will definitely increase adoption, but we need 20k cars to truly take the market vertical, where 60% of new cars are electric.
We need EVs priced low enough so that the monthly out of pocket costs are the same or lower than similar featured ICEVs.
For example, a (no subsidy) $25k EV costs about the same as a $20k ICEV monthly during payoff. And less after.
(100% financing at 4.5% with a 6 year payoff. 13,000 miles per year. 12c/kWh electricity and $3/gallon fuel.)
I think people are going to want EVs. For the quality of ride, convenience, and because “that’s what others are driving”. The question will be “Can I afford one?”. Most people are likely to respond to monthly out of pocket costs.
I think you are definitely right. Most people (at least this side of the Atlantic…) understand the climate/environment crisis, and want to do the right thing. But of course they have to think of the bottom line each month (/year). EVs are much cheaper regarding fuel and maintenance – beside being simply BETTER CARS (acceleration, noise/vibration,…) – so people will go for it when they can afford to. The pre-order numbers of Tesla Model 3 speaks for itself
The pre-order numbers for the Model 3 are great. But they’re about 2 weeks worth of Toyota production…
2, 4, 8, 16, 32…
It’s not that far from 2 weeks worth to 52 weeks worth.
Exactly. The growth is already geometric.
And battery price reductions are geometric. They’re very much related.
Price is everything.
I don’t think it’ll be enough to cost the same. It’s got to be cheaper, because it’s new and it’ll be less capable than the same cost of gasoline car, or at least, people will view it as such. And well, right now, range is severely limiting in the cold. I’m going to have to sell my EV when I move because of this.
As for convenience, I know it plays out that way in practice, but, when you tell people to get the most out of their new electric car, they have to pay $1k to install a new EV charge port in their home, that they’ll have to schedule an electrician, that they’ll have to potentially take time off work for the electrician to show, and do work, that’ll feel really inconvenient versus doing what they’ve always done.
People are familiar with what they’ve always done, and they aren’t going to change for free.
Instead, when we can tell them that their new EV will cost them less now, less to operate, and it’s green too? At that point, I think most people will be choosing EV, and not before.
Subjective, I know, but that’s what I feel.
EVs are actually MORE capable than ICE cars, depending on your metric.
Electric motors are capable of delivering supercar performance and the equivalent of ~90MPG and they’re silent and they don’t need routine maintenance.
Once 3rd party chargers start proliferating and appearing at every mall/shopping center/restaurant, the switchover will be fully underway and unstoppable.
And yes, once the EV price curve intersects ICE vehicles, somewhere around 2022-2025, EVs will become cheaper at every price point, while still delivering better performance. Full disruption. There will be virtually no reason to buy an ICE car at that point.
Electric cars *can* deliver supercar performance, but most EVs don’t including base Tesla Model S units, and most people simply don’t care. These are the people who buy 150 hp Toyota Camrys by the bucket load.
EV engines don’t require routine maintenance, but every single EV I know still requires yearly maintenance anyways, for things like battery pack inspection, changing desiccant cartridges, inspecting suspension and tires, etc… My 2007 Cobalt needed 1 oil change every 20k kms, exactly on par with the yearly service my EV requires.
3rd party chargers should already be perking up, but I’ve seen very little of this of late. Just one little network around me. Your area may be different
Price is the real kingpin here. Once you knock over the price obstacle, everything will fall at a rate so fast it’ll make our heads spin.
Here’s a good talk that extrapolates current trends across the next 10-15 years.
The predictions may seem unlikely, or even outrageous, but then, so did predicting the end of film cameras when the very first digital cameras arrived, or the explosion of cell phones when the first models needed to be carried in a briefcase.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxryv2XrnqM
It’ll happen. And soon. And it’ll be about price, and nothing else. Everything else we have today is good enough, or almost good enough. Get the price low enough, and it’ll all come together.
It’s both. Price and features. Those in line to buy now, are happy to pay a bit extra for the superior drive. That helps build scale and drive price down, then everybody else gets in line. But have no doubt, the gold rush is on.
Electric cars are already superior and more capable than ICEs of the same price. It’s already documented that people are paying large premiums to get Teslas — they’ve done surveys on what price bracket of car Tesla owners previously shopped in.
If the EV costs the same as the gasmobile, that’ll definitely be enough for the EV to dominate that price bracket and market. It might even be enough if the EV costs 10% more than the gasmobile.
This does assume similar models; a sedan isn’t going to eat into the pickup truck market. EVs need to come out in all segments.
I think we’re agreeing here. When the EV is the same price as the as the gasoline car, the gasoline empire will fall really quickly.
I think we are agreeing, yes 🙂 I’m estimating 2022 or so for the serious collapse of gasmobile sales.
That sounds about right, give or take. Battery prices have surprised just about everyone in how fast they’ve fallen. It could be sooner than 2022….
2022 if there is enough battery manufacturing capacity to meet demand.
I am agreed that the upgrade cost is substantial. You can get by with a 240V outlet, and and EVSE cord. My total was $800, including a 40 foot X tension cord. At least everything but the outlet is portable….
Hopefully as competition and volume in the EVSE market heats up, prices will drop.
My 240v EVSE is a Clipper Creek unit sold in Canada as a Sun Country Highway unit.
I did the install myself, so all in it was $1000. It’s capable of charging faster than my car can.
While I disagree with the assertion that EVs are less capable, you’re absolutely right about the perception. I hear it every day when I talk with people about EVs. Perception drives purchase and market share. Period.
They’re definitely less capable in terms of range, especially in the winter. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. The advent of inexpensive 200 mile range vehicles will go a long way towards mitigating that however.
As for the rest, I don’t think the differences are as large as people on this forum make it to be. Yes, they’re smooth, but it’s not like you climb into a Lexus and think “Ooops, I’ve accidentally climbed into a paint shaker”. NVH on most modern cars is quite good.
Similarly, lots of cars have nearly year long oil change intervals that match up well with the yearly maintenance intervals of EVs.
This is why I think price needs to come down. At the same price, and significantly lower operating cost, the EV becomes a no-brainer, and an easy pitch.
LoL on the paint shaker. Yes. Heck, climb into a corolla or civic and they’re quiet, safe, smooth, quick (enough), reliable, etc etc. ICEs have reached an amazing level of refinement, given the complexity particularly the transmission.
Yes, range is huge. IMHO the 100 mile range EV is dead. The only alternative to that today is a PHEV or an expensive Tesla. 200 miles is price of entry for the mainstream.
Bob EV is not about status it is about good decisions.
NO more What they are driving or my status it is a simple decision best product end of story as you know.
You’re replying to this?
“I think people are going to want EVs. For the quality of ride, convenience, and because “that’s what others are driving”. The question will be “Can I afford one?”. Most people are likely to respond to monthly out of pocket costs.”
I suspect driving an EV will, for some, become a status issue or a being up with the times issue for some.
I suspect we’re about ten years away from ICEVs being seen as ‘old tech’ by many.
Best product right now would be a Model S. I can’t afford a model S. What’s next best? Leaf? Can’t afford that either.
What’s next?
Everything is a matter of comprimise at some level, price for performance.
I’m not so sure of that. I have been of the opinion for some time that *used* electric cars will displace *new* gasoline cars. Used three-year-old Model 3s would be selling for $20K if they follow a standard depreciation curve. They may hold up better than that, but even so, I expect the $20K car market will be cannibalized by electric cars by 2022, even if nobody produces a *new* EV with 200 mile range at that price.
If you’re willing to buy used, why wouldn’t you buy a Used Mazda3 though? $10k will buy you a great 3-4 year old Mazda3 GX. Used buyers and new buyers are a different crowd in my experience.
People should be buying up the used electrics now. But every 2-3 years, there’s another breakthrough model, which is making the cautious buyers hold off for now, I think.
Ultimately, whatever you guys say to try to disprove me, I’ve got this ace up my sleeve:
They should already be buying EVs in droves. They aren’t.
Todays EVs are already long enough range for almost anyone. They already offer all that EV goodness that you all wishfully believe matters. It doesn’t. Get the price down low enough, and the range up a big higher, and they’ll sell.
Norway sells em like crazy, up to about 30% of the market or something. Know how they did that? Price.
Price is what matters now.
I think what happens is many people have a price bracket in their mind. Someone will consider a $20K new car, but will consider a $20K used car as well (which is a much nicer car). The risk of buying used is traded off with the value of getting a nicer car.
The used Teslas do seem to sell as fast as they appear on the market, and there is some evidence that they’re eating into the used-car market at that price bracket (the $50K used car, which was obviously a very expensive car to start with).
RIght, but with EVs there’s a lot of fear with the new fangled battery tech. You can show people battery reliability stats all day long, and it won’t matter a whit. Give a person a brand new car warranty that lasts the better part of a decade, and suddenly, they feel a lot better.
And it goes without saying, once you’ve driven an EV and not had issues, you’ll be more willing to consider it, as will your whole peer group.
EV’s aren’t quite on the same playing field yet.
Price and knowledge.
I’d bet well less than 5% of all US drivers know how well a used ‘100 mile range’ EV would work in almost all multi-car households.
For many households the EV would easily do the long household commute, leaving the ICEV to do the shorter commute and long trip driving.
And yet, only a tiny fraction of that 5% have purchased an electric car, and the used market in the U.S. for a Leaf appears to be terrible, with Nissan offering huge buyout plans to existing owners so they’re not stuck with cars they can’t sell at steep discounts…
Like, we’re still sitting at sub 1% penetration, yes?
The first 1% is the hardest….
.
Yup. You need enthusiasts like myself to pay for the infrastructure that will end up dropping the price for everyone else.
Then, away ya go.
Oh, is that why I can’t find a good used Leaf?
The Model 3 will be delivered I am interested in the Model 4 or MY which ever which will be a $20 k vehicle.
Model 2
And it is already happening some places. Here in Norway, the VW Golf cars have been bestsellers in all their incarnations for many years. Last year they brought out an electric version – the VW e-Golf – and 70% of Golf-sales thereafter were of the electric kind. Yes, it’s got to do with “subsidies”; new cars are heavily taxed in Norway, but electric cars are excempt from that, so that an e-Golf is currently cheaper than a fossil Golf
It’s starting for sure, but we’ve not gone vertical yet.
I think we will relatively soon, probably at the tail end of the next generation of EVs, but we’re not there yet.
I’ll consider it “going vertical” when EV’s sell more than gasmobiles on an ongoing basis across the world.
To put current production into perspective, GM and Ford both produce more gas cars in a day than Tesla produces in a year. Even the 400k Model 3’s will be less than a weeks worth of Ford gasoline car production.
Yes, of course you are right. I live in a sheltered, affluent part of the world, where everything is easier than most other places. Depressing numbers you are stating, but unquestionably true. But hey, things are moving fast nowadays. People laughed at Apple for bringing out the iPhone, but they commersialized the smartphone, and now its everywhere. The same will happen to EVs, especially thanks to Tesla. Give it 3-5 years, and people will think of fossil cars as something SO last century. Already every 3.rd car sold here is a pure EV, not a PHEV. This is unstoppable, but of course rich countries like Norway, Netherlands, Sweden and the like will lead the way. I prey to all the Gods I don’t believe in that the USA will choose someone else than Mr. Trumpf, so that the USA will not be left behind in the technological backwaters of fossil fuels. Cause the change will happen anyway, and let’s hope the USA will take part, and not leave the field to China, Europe and India
I don’t think it’s depressing. I’m just giving the data as it exists.
To build the Model 3 10 years ago would have cost ~130k, with over $100k in batteries alone, then a lot of money in power electronics that weren’t as refined then. In 10 years, we’ve cut nearly $100k out of the cost of that car. Al wee need to do is cut another $10k, and I think it’s completely doable in a few years. I just think it’ll be a few years into the rollout of the Model 3 and competitors.
Sales of Teslas are limited primarily by production capacity. It really takes time to build factories… so they can only expand so fast. BYD is experiencing essentially the same growth issue. Nobody else is seriously trying to sell electric cars yet, for whatever reason.
Teslas are currently limited by production capacity. But at some point, exponential growth will stop unless they can get prices down. There isn’t a market for a million Model S priced vehicles a ear.
As if Steve did not know that there’s a Tesla Model 3 that will sell for half the price of the model S.
Sure… But even the Model 3 won’t sell in the 10’s of millions at a base price of $35k. It’s a BMW 3 series competitor, not a Corolla replacement.
Surely we can agree on that.
The car below the Model 3 will be needed as a part of the solution for truly mass adoption.
The Tesla S and X will sell in the hundreds of thousands.
The Tesla 3 will sell in the millions.
The lower priced EV that Tesla brings to market a few years from now will sell in the tens of millions.
(That’s Tesla + other brands/models once other manufacturers get into the game. Tesla is very willing to share the market.)
I think you’re agreeing with me here? You’ve essentially restated what I said with some unsourced numbers beside it…
Electric cars have already eclipsed gas cars in performance. Price… well, that’s Model 3 in 2018.
Most EVs offer similar performance in terms of acceleration to their gasoline counterparts.
Where they still fall down is range, unless it’s a Tesla.
And if it’s a Tesla, it’s too expensive, for now.
Even once the Model 3 comes out, most people will still continue to buy their Toyota Camrys for a while, because people don’t give two shits about the environment, or about EV performance, and the Base Camry starts at $24k, but the base Tesla starts at $30k after rebates while those rebates last. $6k buys an awful lot of gas. For the average person, that’s what.. 4-5 years of gas?
Plus for that $6k cheaper car, they don’t have to change *anything*.
When the price of the EV with an at least 200 mile range is less than the gasmobile, that’s when we’ll start to really see the EVs fly off the lots. Not before.
Two points:
— The median price of the new car in the US is $32K.
— For those who get the full federal tax break, the Model 3 will start at $27500; $25000 for those who get the full California tax break.
People will pay a premium for the superior driving experience of an EV. I’m not sure how much that premium is and it probably decreases as you move downmarket, but I’d reckon it’s at least $1K.
For reference my charging point in my garage cost roughly $250 to install (including parts). People will just *do* this; the price is small enough that they won’t blink at it if they’re already buying a new car. Obviously Your Garage May Vary, but still.
Not the median price. The average price. Different thing. It’s slewed by all the 1%ers and upper middle class buying BMWs, Mercedes, and Lexus’.
People aren’t going to pay anything for the better driving experience. This is known because Toyota sells gobs and gobs of boring crappy cars with zero performance to them whatsoever, and they sell like hotcakes.
People could go out and buy genuinely better driving cars, but they don’t, so your EV performance thing really doesn’t pan out, does it?
We need price. We need to get the price down low enough that you’d have to be an idiot not to buy an EV. When the gasoline car comes at a premium in operating cost, and purchase price, that’s when people will start switching en masse. Look at the success of Norway. Something like 30% of cars sold there are EVs. Know how they did it? EVs are a substantial amount cheaper than a gasoline equivalent. And that’s only enough to get 30% market penetration. We need 90%+.
Toyotas had better driving experiences than the rattletrap 1970s and 1980s Fords which preceded them in the market.
Yes, people will pay a small premium for a quiet, smooth ride. I’m not talking “performance” here, I’m talking comfort. Until people have spent some time in an EV, they won’t value it, but after enough people have, people will not want to go back to cars which shake and rattle constantly. It would be like going from a car back to a motorcycle in terms of comfort; people won’t want to do it. Yugos were cheap, but how quickly did people in Eastern Europe switch to more expensive Western cars which didn’t belch as much smoke or rattle as much? Very quickly.
I’ve only been trying to figure the premium out in order to make a more exact projection for the adoption curve. It’s small and doesn’t make that much difference.
Toyotas of the time were smaller, rattlier, but more reliable and better on fuel. They weren’t a better driving experience at all. You were mocked for owning one. That’s why it took so long for Toyota to make significant inroads. Like two decades. They didn’t really hit massive market share until the 90’s.
If people are willing to pay a small premium for an EV, why aren’t EVs flying off the lots? After all, a Leaf is a substantial amount cheaper than the average car after rebate…?
Short answer: They don’t care, and they won’t start caring anytime soon.
Norway has the right answer here. Make it cost enough less, and they’ll sell.
The mentioned eGolf is only slightly cheaper than the ICE version in Norway. But there can be other factors than what you pay for the car itself. With an EV you don’t pay CO2-tax or tollroads or ferries (lots of those on the crinkly west coast), and most places you are allowed to drive in the bus lanes. And of course electricity is way cheaper than petrol here (it’s all hydroelectric).
Anyway, surveys tell us that the “neighbor effect” is the great mobilizer. And people don’t always buy the cheapest. iPod: suddenly people accepted paying many times what they previously did for a MP3-player. Same with smartphones. Consumers are not necessarily rational
A little bit cheaper is evidently all you need then. But a lot more expensive definitely isn’t flying…
The early Toyotas and Datsuns (Nissans) weren’t visually attractive to most Americans.
We could say the same about many of the first generation EVs. Tesla seems to have understood that attractiveness is a big part of selling cars, at least in the US. Time for other manufacturers to start turning out EVs that are pleasing to the eye. (Fiat did a decent job, IMO.)
And Nokia laughed at the idea that people would pay $800 for an iPhone.
An EV isn’t a new market segment. It’s an evolution of an existing market segment. An EV doesn’t do anything new that a normal car doesn’t, it just does it at a lower operating cost.
That’s why the price premium won’t fly.
A lot of people are renters -especially younger people. Except of a few enlightened places, charging from an apartment or condo isn’t going to fly. That will limit the market to stable homeowners.
In Sydney, 80% of existing units, and pretty much all new units, have allocated parking. It will fly.
A Tesla driver could do well charging only from Superchargers.
13,000 miles / 170 mile, 40 minute charge = 76 charges per year = ~6 charges per month.
Three charges while grocery shopping, hitting the gym, having lunch/dinner, whatever in two weeks.
Where did you get an EVSE for $250?
I ended up being nearly $1000 and I did the install myself…
I would add a #6: large parts of finance have got the message. It started with the big reinsurers, especially Munich Re. Then the research departments of several very large banks – UBS, Deutsche, Citi – started pumping out reports predicting a continued boom in renewables. Major figures like Mark Carney of the Bank of England started talking about stranded assets and financial risks of climate change. Borrowing costs came down for utility solar and wind farms, recognized as low-risk investments. The divestment movement gathered steam, with the giant Norwegian sovereign wealth fund selectively divesting from coal. The international development banks, long attached to funding centralised coal and hydro plants, have changed their tune and are now advocates for renewables and even offgrid solar. The change is not complete, but it’s huge compared to 10 years ago,
Lazard’s careful LCOE analyses have been very helpful in this regard.
Yes. Another important player I left out is Bloomberg, a mainstream supplier of financial information that added a valuable line in renewable energy.
Yes. The Wall Street journal continues to publish inaccurate information and stuff that’s 10 years out of date. Bloomberg has better analysts for sure.
WSJ and Forbes. Untrustable information sources. A wise business person should avoid them.
The graphic below, to me, shows as much about what has happened in the last 10 years and more specifically the cumulative change that resulted in divestment from fossil fuels between 2014 and 2015.
Perhaps the major reason that China has made a move is because of the horrible outcomes from using 1880 technology as shown graphically in this 9 series of videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjHyAl0h4t8&feature=player_embedded&list=PLxU79dQZwwJPkEaR1jM8iJQS0L9iMopog
Very strange i posted a Video which outlines exactly the outcomes of Particulate effects and it is not here hmm.
Moderator any reason to stop this being posted or did you not look at it and in fact not understand the devastating information it contains all 9 in the series covering China and the USA for that matter.
Comments with links often go to moderation queue, and aren’t visible until a human can review it.
Bob is good, but he does sleep on occasion…
Since I don’t see it in the Pending, Spam or Deleted folders I’m guessing it either was approved or something happened and it wasn’t uploaded.
BTW, don’t know if you summarized what the video contained, but if you didn’t – please do.
(Bob not only sleeps, but he also works in the garden and needs to get back to working on his house now that winter is over. And he’s going to the grocery store tomorrow. ;o)
My humble apologies Bob.
It is posted below after Adrian reply to me.
I would urge you to go through the 9 video’s it would be very difficult not to be moved.
There was an article I read talking about how electric companies love solar. Why? Because when they have a choice between meeting demand with coal (costs money), and meeting demand with renewables (free after installation), they always go with renewables first because it fattens their margins due to no cost of Renewables. This is of course creating a positive feedback loop which drives demand for more renewables. Love it!
If that were the way utilities think, they would have been adding hydro instead of coal in the 1970s and 80s. It’s more likely that they do a full financial analysis, and it’s only recently that this has pointed to renewables as the cheapest. Look up LCOE: it’s not a perfect metric as it leaves out grid integration costs, but it’s certainly in widespread use.
If? Its self apparent truth. We always want thicker margins, and using free sunshine instead of costly coal is a no brainer. But lets entertain your point. First off, CEO’s win not by being innovative and outside the norm. So suggesting such an idea is problematic at best. It takes a few brave Gazelles to jump into the water before others are willing. Secondly, Hydro is not available every where. Third, the fossil fuel industry is very quick to whip people into submission. I assure you the dynamics are changing, but it takes time for that type of new Zen to get secure footing.
I’m not sure that hydro was cheaper than coal forty years ago. Coal would have had, in general, lower transmission costs.
That’s me wondering….
There used to be an FCC requirement called “equal time” so that both sides of an issue would be presented. I think that has gone by the wayside but I’m reminded of it when the Petroleum Institute runs ads pointing out that the more oil and gas we use, the lower our energy costs will be and that they are “energy voters”. Of course they don’t point out any of the damage done. Maybe they have some inkling of a conscience because about 20% of the time they run an ad with “all of the above” as a choice.
Thanks to Al Gore, James Hanson, and thousands of concerned, involved citizens here and worldwide, humanity is beginning to correct its hundred year bungle. All humanity is challenged, and we will change. We don’t kill whales for lamp fuel any more. As we assert our will to live cleanly and ethically, we will find the ways.