renewable energy speech topics

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• How Americans View National, Local and Personal Energy Choices

Most Americans want more renewable energy, but support has dipped. Interest in electric vehicles has also declined

Table of contents.

• 1. Views on energy development in the U.S.
• 2. Americans’ views on local wind and solar power development
• 3. Americans’ perceptions of solar power in their own lives
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology
• Appendix: Detailed charts and tables

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand Americans’ views of energy issues. For this analysis, we surveyed 8,638 U.S. adults from May 13 to 19, 2024.

Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this report , along with responses, and its Methodology .

The planet’s continued streak of record heat has spurred calls for action by scientists and global leaders . Meanwhile, in the United States, energy development policy is being hotly debated on the national and local levels this election year. How do Americans feel about U.S. energy policy options, and what steps are they willing to take in their own lives to reduce carbon emissions? A new Pew Research Center survey takes a look.

Among the major findings:

There’s been a decline in the breadth of support for wind and solar power. The shares who favor expanding solar and wind power farms are down 12 percentage points and 11 points, respectively, since 2020, driven by sharp drops in support among Republicans.

Interest in buying an electric vehicle (EV) is lower than a year ago. Today, 29% of Americans say they would consider an EV for their next purchase, down from 38% in 2023.

Still, a majority of Americans (63%) support the goal of the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050. When asked which is the greater priority, far more Americans continue to say the country should focus on developing renewable energy than fossil fuel sources (65% vs. 34%).

The survey, conducted May 13-19 among 8,638 U.S. adults, finds a fairly modest share of U.S. adults (25%) say it’s extremely or very important to them personally to limit their own “carbon footprint.” Far more give this middling or low priority.

These findings illustrate how large shares of Americans back more renewable energy that would decrease overall carbon emissions. Still, this general orientation does not necessarily translate into strong commitment to reducing personal carbon emissions or interest in buying an EV.

Jump to read more on: Trends in views of energy development in the U.S. | Views on wind and solar development at the local level | Perceptions of solar power in people’s own lives

What’s behind declines in support for wind and solar?

Declines in public support for renewable energy have been driven by Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, whose support started to fall sharply after President Joe Biden took office in early 2020.

• 64% of Republicans say they favor more solar panel farms, down from 84% in 2020.
• 56% of Republicans say they favor more wind turbine farms, a 19-point drop from 2020.

Over this same time period, views among Democrats and Democratic leaners on these measures are little changed, with large majorities continuing to support more wind and solar development.

In some cases, gaps between Republicans and Democrats over energy policy now approach the very wide partisan divides seen over the importance of climate change .

In May 2020, Democrats were 26 points more likely than Republicans to say the country’s priority should be developing renewable energy (91% vs. 65%). Four years later, that gap has ballooned to 49 points, due almost entirely to changing views among Republicans – 61% of whom now say developing fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas should be the more important priority.

Jump to more details on partisan differences in views of U.S. energy development.

But changes in attitudes about policies that would reduce carbon emissions are not solely the result of more negative views among Republicans. For instance, the share of Democrats who say they are very or somewhat likely to consider an EV for their next car purchase has declined from 56% to 45% in the last year. And the share of Democrats who call climate change a very big problem for the U.S. has declined from 71% in 2021 to 58% today.

Views within each party

Among Republicans, age matters. Younger Republicans express much more support for renewable energy than do older Republicans. For instance, 67% of Republicans ages 18 to 29 say the country should give priority to wind, solar and hydrogen development. The oldest Republicans (ages 65 and older) take the opposite view: 76% give priority to developing oil, coal and natural gas.

By and large, Democrats are more united in their views on energy. Democrats across age groups broadly support steps that would lower carbon emissions and prioritize renewable sources. But differences emerge over the degree with which to break from fossil fuels: 45% of Democrats say the country should phase out the use of oil, coal and natural gas completely, compared with 53% who say that fossil fuels should remain part of the mix along with renewable sources.

Differences within the two major parties are explored in more detail here .

Views on increasing electric vehicles in the U.S.

Amid a major policy push at the federal level for electric vehicles, Americans are unenthusiastic about steps that would phase out gas-powered vehicles.

In March of this year, the Biden administration announced a rule aimed at dramatically expanding EV sales . Overall, 58% of Americans say they oppose these rules that would make EVs at least half of all new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. by 2032. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose this policy (83%). Among Democrats, 64% support these rules to expand EV sales, while 35% say they oppose them.

Americans bought EVs in record numbers last year, but the growth rate is slowing, and interest in EVs has declined. In the current survey, 29% of Americans say they are very or somewhat likely to consider an electric vehicle the next time they purchase a car. Last year, 38% expressed this level of interest in an EV purchase.

Related: About 3 in 10 Americans would seriously consider buying an electric vehicle and the distribution of EV charging stations in the U.S.

Americans’ views on limiting their own ‘carbon footprint’

Discussions about reducing carbon emissions often include the everyday actions people can take to reduce the amount of energy they use . One-in-four Americans say it is extremely or very important to them personally to limit their own “carbon footprint.” Larger shares say this is either somewhat (42%) or not too or not at all (32%) important to them.

Even among Democrats – who express broad support for renewable energy – only 39% say reducing their own carbon footprint is extremely or very important to them personally.

These findings align with a previous Center survey that shows a modest share of Americans (23%) expect to make major sacrifices in their own life because of climate change.

Simply put, the shares of Americans who place the highest priority on limiting their own carbon emissions or expect to make big changes to the way they live because of climate change remain relatively small.

Those who place a high priority on reducing their own carbon footprint – or expect major direct impacts from climate change – are far more likely than other Americans to back aggressive steps to reduce carbon emissions.

For instance, 70% of those who place high importance on reducing their own carbon footprint support rules to dramatically boost EV sales in the U.S. by 2032. Much smaller shares of those who say reducing their carbon footprint is somewhat (43%) or not too or not at all (14%) important support this policy.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Partisanship & Issues
• Political Issues

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure in the U.S.

How republicans view climate change and energy issues, growing share of americans favor more nuclear power, why some americans do not see urgency on climate change, what the data says about americans’ views of climate change, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Environment Story Of The Day NPR hide caption

Environment

• LISTEN & FOLLOW

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

Al Gore's Speech On Renewable Energy

Listen: gore speaks on energy and global warming from d.a.r constitution hall.

Following is the prepared text of former Vice President Al Gore's speech in Washington Thursday about renewable energy. Source: AlGore.com.

There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment. The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more - if more should be required - the future of human civilization is at stake.

I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.

The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse - much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland's largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.

Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world.

Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an "energy tsunami" that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.

And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America, Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10 percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for igniting the conflagration in California today.

Like a lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and that's been worrying me.

I'm convinced that one reason we've seemed paralyzed in the face of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately - without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective - they almost always make the other crises even worse.

Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges - the economic, environmental and national security crises.

We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.

But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we're holding the answer to all of them right in our hand.

The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.

In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of "solutions summits" with engineers, scientists, and CEOs. In those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.

What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?

We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses.

And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.

The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.

But to make this exciting potential a reality, and truly solve our nation's problems, we need a new start.

That's why I'm proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It's not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America.

Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.

This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.

A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here's what's changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power - coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal - have radically changed the economics of energy.

When I first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 per barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.

And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.

You know, the same thing happened with computer chips - also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months - year after year, and that's what's happened for 40 years in a row.

To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I've seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.

To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.

When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.

Of course there are those who will tell us this can't be done. Some of the voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo - the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, "The Stone Age didn't end because of a shortage of stones."

To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world's scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don't act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.

To those who say the challenge is not politically viable: I suggest they go before the American people and try to defend the status quo. Then bear witness to the people's appetite for change.

I for one do not believe our country can withstand 10 more years of the status quo. Our families cannot stand 10 more years of gas price increases. Our workers cannot stand 10 more years of job losses and outsourcing of factories. Our economy cannot stand 10 more years of sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil. And our soldiers and their families cannot take another 10 years of repeated troop deployments to dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies.

What could we do instead for the next 10 years? What should we do during the next 10 years? Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system. But a political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that it's meaningless. Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target.

When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon.

To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity. Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.

We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid.

At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That's the best investment we can make.

America's transition to renewable energy sources must also include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship. For example, we must recognize those who have toiled in dangerous conditions to bring us our present energy supply. We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry. Every single one of them.

Of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.

In order to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO2 emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the world's agenda for solving the climate crisis.

Of course the greatest obstacle to meeting the challenge of 100 percent renewable electricity in 10 years may be the deep dysfunction of our politics and our self-governing system as it exists today. In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness.

It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they're going to bring gasoline prices down. It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. If we keep going back to the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again. But the Congress may be poised to move in that direction anyway because some of them are being stampeded by lobbyists for special interests that know how to make the system work for them instead of the American people.

If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term.

However, there actually is one extremely effective way to bring the costs of driving a car way down within a few short years. The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.

Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not we've simply lost our appetite for bold policy solutions. And folks who claim to know how our system works these days have told us we might as well forget about our political system doing anything bold, especially if it is contrary to the wishes of special interests. And I've got to admit, that sure seems to be the way things have been going. But I've begun to hear different voices in this country from people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest politics, but are hungry for a new, different and bold approach.

We are on the eve of a presidential election. We are in the midst of an international climate treaty process that will conclude its work before the end of the first year of the new president's term. It is a great error to say that the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest.

So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge - for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It's time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now.

This is a generational moment. A moment when we decide our own path and our collective fate. I'm asking you - each of you - to join me and build this future. Please join the WE campaign at wecansolveit.org.We need you. And we need you now. We're committed to changing not just light bulbs, but laws. And laws will only change with leadership.

On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet President Kennedy's challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for the giant Saturn 5 rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky. I was a young man, 21 years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in the United States Army three weeks later.

I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the vibration of the giant rocket's engines shook my entire body. As I watched the rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking straight up into the air. And then four days later, I watched along with hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race.

We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.

A beginner’s guide to the debate over 100% renewable energy

Is it the right target? Is it even possible?

by David Roberts

Imagine powering civilization entirely with energy from renewable sources: wind, sun, water (hydroelectricity), naturally occurring heat (geothermal), and plants.

No coal mines, oil wells, pipelines, or coal trains. No greenhouse gas emissions, car exhaust, or polluted streams. No wars over oil, dependence on foreign suppliers, or resource shortages.

Sounds nice, right?

A growing number of activists say it is within reach. The idea has inspired ambitious commitments from an increasing number of cities , including Madison, Wisconsin, San Diego, and Salt Lake City. Advocates are pushing states to support the goal.

Clean-energy enthusiasts frequently claim that we can go bigger, that it’s possible for the whole worldto run on renewables — we merely lack the “ political will .”

So, is it true? Do we know how get to an all-renewables system?

Not yet. Not really. Current modeling strongly suggests that we will need a broader portfolio of low-carbon options, including nuclear and possibly coal or natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), to get deep cuts in carbon.

However, that’s only current modeling. There are many reasons to question what models tell us about the future three, four, five decades out. They have typically underestimated renewables and likely still are. There is much debate, not only about what models show, but what lessons we should take from them and how we should approach the task of decarbonization.

But all that is a bit in the weeds. Before we get into the nerdy back and forth — as I will in a subsequent post — let’s take a step back.

In this post, I simply want to introduce the debate over 100 percent renewable energy to those who aren’t familiar with it. Consider this a basic lay of the land, to get you oriented.

It’s not about whether to go to zero carbon, but how to get there

The most important political division in the world of climate change is between those who accept the urgency of the problem and those who don’t. Those who don’t are in charge of the federal government these days. Their energy plans are a celebration of fossil fuels.

The debate over 100 percent renewable energy isn’t about that division. This is about a dispute among people who accept the imperative to rapidly reduce carbon emissions, sufficient to hold the rise in global average temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over preindustrial levels. To hit that globally agreed upon target requires “deep decarbonization” — reducing total carbon emissions 80 to 100 percent — across the globe, by mid-century or shortly thereafter.

Both sides in this dispute agree that any deep decarbonization scenario is going to crucially involve electrifying everything . Specifically, it will involve doing two things at once: a) eliminating carbon emissions from the electricity sector and b) moving as many other energy services as possible (transportation, heating, and industry) over to electricity.

(Yes, I’m aware “everything” is an exaggeration — there will likely always be tasks that require liquid fuel combustion — but it is, as my grandfather used to say, close enough for government work.)

Doing that — using electricity to get around, heat our buildings, and run our factories — will increase demand for power. Different models predict different things, but at the high end we’re talking about power demand growing by 150 percent or more through mid-century.

That means the electricity grid will have to get bigger, more sophisticated, more efficient, and more reliable — while it is decarbonizing . That is the central challenge of deep decarbonization.

So what’s the best way to get there?

That’s where the dispute comes in. On one side are those who say we should transition to an electricity system powered entirely by renewables, most notably the Solutions Project , based on the work of Stanford’s Mark Jacobson , backed by a board of high-profile greens including Van Jones, Mark Ruffalo, and Jacobson himself.

On the other side are those who say that the primary goal should be zero carbon, not 100 percent renewables. They say that, in addition to wind, solar, and the rest of the technologies beloved by climate hawks, we’re also going to need a substantial amount of nuclear power and fossil fuel power with CCS.

That’s the dispute. Some climate hawks oppose nuclear and CCS. Others — with attitudes varying from enthusiasm to weary resignation — believe that they will be necessary for deep decarbonization.

(If you shrug and say, “it’s too early to know,” you’re correct, but you’re no fun to dispute with.)

The heart of the renewables challenge: compensating for variability

The entire dispute revolves around a simple fact: The most abundant sources of carbon-free power, wind and sun, are variable. The sun is not always shining; the wind is not always blowing.

The fact that they are variable means that they are not dispatchable — the folks operating the power grid cannot turn them on and off as needed. The power comes when it comes and doesn’t when it doesn’t. Grid operators adjust to them, not the other way around.

As more and more of a grid’s power comes from variable renewable energy (VRE), two sorts of problems start to arise.

One set of problems is technical (explained in more detail here ). As VRE capacity increases, grid operators increasingly have to deal with large spikes in power (say, on a sunny, windy day), sometimes well above 100 percent of demand. If there’s no way to absorb that surplus energy, it is “ curtailed ,” i.e., wasted.

They also have to deal with large dips in VRE. It happens every day when the sun sets, but variations in VRE supply can also take place over weekly, monthly, seasonal, and even decadal time frames.

And finally, grid operators have to deal with rapid ramps, i.e., VRE going from producing almost no energy to producing a ton, or vice versa, over a short period of time. That requires rapid, flexible short-term resources that can ramp up or down in response.

That’s the technical challenge. There’s also an economic problem (explained in more detail here ).

As each new megawatt (MW) of VRE comes online, it incrementally reduces the value to the grid of the next MW of VRE. A new MW of wind capacity is only going to generate energy when the other wind capacity is generating energy. Same with solar.

As more and more wind and solar come on the grid, the value of resources that can provide energy when VRE isn’t generating will rise; correspondingly, the marginal value of the next unit of VRE will decline. That means solar, especially, has to clear a higher and higher economic bar .

Now, to be clear: There are tools to address these technical and economic problems . Lots of tools, more every day. There’s a whole blooming, buzzing swarm of research and innovation happening in this area. (More on that here .)

The dispute comes down to whether these problems can be solved without nuclear and CCS.

The last 10 to 20 percent of decarbonization is the hardest

It is possible to get substantial decarbonization using well-understood technologies and policies.

A great deal can be accomplished just by substituting natural gas combined cycle power plants for coal plants. While that’s going on, you grow renewables and maintain your existing nuclear and hydroelectric fleet. That is, practically speaking, how the US has reduced carbon emissions in recent years.

The strategy works great for a while. Natural gas plants are much more flexible than coal plants, so they work as a nice complement to VRE, balancing out variability.

But in terms of deep decarbonization, the strategy eventually leads to a cul de sac. Natural gas is cleaner than coal (by roughly half, depending on how you measure methane leakage), but it’s still a fossil fuel. At least without CCS, it is incompatible with decarbonization beyond 60 percent or so.

If you build out a bunch of natural gas plants to get to 60 percent, then you’re stuck shutting them down to get past 60 percent.

It would be very difficult to strand all those assets. There would be a lot of resistance. It’s just one example of path dependence in energy — choices, once made, tend to perpetuate themselves through inertia. Leaning too heavily into natural gas in the next 20 years will make it more difficult to pull away in the subsequent 20.

Avoiding that cul de sac means thinking, beginning now, about how to replace all that natural gas with other balancing resources that don’t emit carbon.

The balancing act to achieve carbon-free electricity

Think of a carbon-free grid as a balance of two kinds of electricity resources, dispatchable and non-dispatchable.

As we noted earlier, non-dispatchable means VRE — on and offshore wind, solar PV, solar thermal, run-of-river hydro, anything based on weather — that can’t be turned on and off.

VRE can be made somewhat less variable by linking up resources over a wide geographical area with more transmission lines. Over a large enough area, it’s usually sunny or windy somewhere. But in a constrained grid, non-dispatchable resources generally need balancing out with dispatchable resources.

Dispatchable is a broad (and getting broader) category — it means anything that grid operators can use to actively manage the balance of electricity supply and demand.

There are three basic varieties:

• Dispatchable supply , i.e., power plants — in the low-to-no carbon family, this includes nuclear (by far the most common, generating 11 percent of the world’s electricity as of 2012), fossil fuels with CCS, reservoir hydro, biomass (though it is controversial), and geothermal.
• Dispatchable demand — increasingly, demand for power can be managed, either reduced or shifted to different parts of the day/week.
• Energy storage — storage is interesting because, from a grid operator’s perspective, it can serve either as dispatchable demand (absorbing surplus VRE) or dispatchable supply (releasing energy during times of low VRE). And there are a growing number of ways to store energy. The oldest and highest capacity is pumped hydro , whereby water is pumped uphill to store energy and then run down through turbines to release it. (A company in the American West is attempting a dry-land variation of this, pushing giant blocks uphill on train tracks .) There are also batteries, which are getting cheaper. And beyond that power can be stored as heat (in, e.g., molten salt), as cold (in ice), or as hydrogen (long story). This is also an area of furious research.

Among these three categories, resources range from high capacity (enough power to cover demand for weeks or months) to low (hours or minutes) and from fast (able to respond instantly or in seconds) to slow (hours or days).

Each dispatchable resource will have slightly different value to grid operators, depending on conditions and time of day.

Big dispatchable supply sources can cover for VRE that’s unexpectedly low for weeks or even years.

Dispatchable demand is still in a nascent, rapidly developing phase, and at least for now it’s relatively slow and low capacity, but that will change; it will get fast, though how big is still an open question.

The biggest energy storage currently running (pumped hydro) can typically only cover a few hours of demand, but smaller storage can cover for hourly or minute-by-minute swings in VRE.

Here’s where we come up against the dispute. Will we need nuclear and CCS to provide balancing, or can we do it without them?

To nuke or not to nuke?

The folks at the Solutions Project claim that we can — and, on the basis of a full cost-benefit analysis that takes all environmental impacts into effect, should — balance out VRE without recourse to nuclear power or CCS. (Jacobson also excludes biomass, though several other 100 percenters disagree with him on that.)

Doing that will involve three things. One, VRE will have to be massively overbuilt. Because its “capacity factor” (the amount of time it’s running) is relatively low, to fully meet demand, total capacity will have to far exceed total demand, by multiples.

Two, transmission lines will have to be extended everywhere across the globe, to link VRE sources with demand and smooth out supply. And distribution grids will need to be upgraded. Quickly.

And three, remaining dispatchable resources — demand management, storage, hydro, maybe biomass — will have to be radically, radically scaled up. In particular, storage is going to have to grow exponentially.

On the other side of the dispute are people, many of whom are energy researchers, who simply don’t believe that the above scenario is feasible, or if it is, that it’s the most economic or effective way to get to zero carbon. They say nuclear and CCS should stay on the table.

This is a heated and complex debate. I won’t presume to settle it, but in my next post I’ll get into some of the literature and the back and forth and try to draw some tentative conclusions.

For now, though, it’s enough to understand the shape of the problem, which is, after all, one of the core challenges facing humanity in the 21st century.

Most Popular

The supreme court just lit a match and tossed it into dozens of federal agencies, the supreme court hands an embarrassing defeat to america’s trumpiest court, the supreme court rules that state officials can engage in a little corruption, as a treat, web3 is the future, or a scam, or both, the frogs of puerto rico have a warning for us, today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

More in Climate

Summertime sadness is real

Yes, you should prepare your kids for climate disasters

Why this year’s Hajj was so deadly

If it’s 100 degrees out, does your boss have to give you a break? Probably not.

The race to get ahead of the next tornado

Biden vs. Trump: The first 2024 presidential debate

The most important Biden Cabinet member you don’t know

Facts on the Ground

The winners and losers of the Biden economy

Biden’s border record: Trump’s claims vs. reality

News • June 25, 2013

Transcript of Obama’s Speech on Climate Change

Georgetown University Washington, D.C.  June 25, 2013

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you!  (Applause.)  Thank you, Georgetown!  Thank you so much.  Everybody, please be seated.  And my first announcement today is that you should all take off your jackets.  (Laughter.)  I’m going to do the same.  (Applause.)  It’s not that sexy, now.  (Laughter.)

It is good to be back on campus, and it is a great privilege to speak from the steps of this historic hall that welcomed Presidents going back to George Washington. 

I want to thank your president, President DeGioia, who’s here today.   (Applause.)  I want to thank him for hosting us.  I want to thank the many members of my Cabinet and my administration.  I want to thank Leader Pelosi and the members of Congress who are here.  We are very grateful for their support. 

And I want to say thank you to the Hoyas in the house for having me back.  (Applause.)  It was important for me to speak directly to your generation, because the decisions that we make now and in the years ahead will have a profound impact on the world that all of you inherit. 

On Christmas Eve, 1968, the astronauts of Apollo 8 did a live broadcast from lunar orbit.  So Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, William Anders—the first humans to orbit the moon -– described what they saw, and they read Scripture from the Book of Genesis to the rest of us back here.  And later that night, they took a photo that would change the way we see and think about our world. 

RELATED CONTENT

The big story: Obama sets grand plan

The breakdown: Key features of plan

Response to speech: How it played

Watch the speech:  Youtube

Charting the course: Infographic

Details of climate plan: Slideshare

It was an image of Earth -– beautiful; breathtaking; a glowing marble of blue oceans, and green forests, and brown mountains brushed with white clouds, rising over the surface of the moon.

And while the sight of our planet from space might seem routine today, imagine what it looked like to those of us seeing our home, our planet, for the first time.  Imagine what it looked like to children like me.  Even the astronauts were amazed.  “It makes you realize,” Lovell would say, “just what you have back there on Earth.” 

And around the same time we began exploring space, scientists were studying changes taking place in the Earth’s atmosphere.  Now, scientists had known since the 1800s that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide trap heat, and that burning fossil fuels release those gases into the air.  That wasn’t news. But in the late 1950s, the National Weather Service began measuring the levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, with the worry that rising levels might someday disrupt the fragile balance that makes our planet so hospitable.  And what they’ve found, year after year, is that the levels of carbon pollution in our atmosphere have increased dramatically.

That science, accumulated and reviewed over decades, tells us that our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on all of humankind.

The 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years.  Last year, temperatures in some areas of the ocean reached record highs, and ice in the Arctic shrank to its smallest size on record—faster than most models had predicted it would.  These are facts.

Now, we know that no single weather event is caused solely by climate change.  Droughts and fires and floods, they go back to ancient times.  But we also know that in a world that’s warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by a warming planet.  The fact that sea level in New York, in New York Harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago—that didn’t cause Hurricane Sandy, but it certainly contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and underwater. 

The potential impacts go beyond rising sea levels.  Here at home, 2012 was the warmest year in our history.  Midwest farms were parched by the worst drought since the Dust Bowl, and then drenched by the wettest spring on record.  Western wildfires scorched an area larger than the state of Maryland.  Just last week, a heat wave in Alaska shot temperatures into the 90s.

And we know that the costs of these events can be measured in lost lives and lost livelihoods, lost homes, lost businesses, hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency services and disaster relief.  In fact, those who are already feeling the effects of climate change don’t have time to deny it—they’re busy dealing with it.  Firefighters are braving longer wildfire seasons, and states and federal governments have to figure out how to budget for that.  I had to sit on a meeting with the Department of Interior and Agriculture and some of the rest of my team just to figure out how we're going to pay for more and more expensive fire seasons. 

Farmers see crops wilted one year, washed away the next; and the higher food prices get passed on to you, the American consumer.  Mountain communities worry about what smaller snowpacks will mean for tourism—and then, families at the bottom of the mountains wonder what it will mean for their drinking water.  Americans across the country are already paying the price of inaction in insurance premiums, state and local taxes, and the costs of rebuilding and disaster relief. 

So the question is not whether we need to act.  The overwhelming judgment of science—of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements—has put all that to rest.  Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest.  They've acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.

So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late.  And how we answer will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind not just to you, but to your children and to your grandchildren. 

As a President, as a father, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act.  (Applause.)

I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.  And that’s why, today, I'm announcing a new national climate action plan, and I'm here to enlist your generation's help in keeping the United States of America a leader—a global leader—in the fight against climate change.

This plan builds on progress that we've already made.  Last year, I took office—the year that I took office, my administration pledged to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions by about 17 percent from their 2005 levels by the end of this decade.  And we rolled up our sleeves and we got to work. We doubled the electricity we generated from wind and the sun.  We doubled the mileage our cars will get on a gallon of gas by the middle of the next decade.  (Applause.)

President Obama during his speech detailing his climate action plan for the U.S.

Here at Georgetown, I unveiled my strategy for a secure energy future.  And thanks to the ingenuity of our businesses, we're starting to produce much more of our own energy.  We're building the first nuclear power plants in more than three decades—in Georgia and South Carolina.  For the first time in 18 years, America is poised to produce more of our own oil than we buy from other nations.  And today, we produce more natural gas than anybody else.  So we're producing energy.  And these advances have grown our economy, they've created new jobs, they can't be shipped overseas—and, by the way, they've also helped drive our carbon pollution to its lowest levels in nearly 20 years.  Since 2006, no country on Earth has reduced its total carbon pollution by as much as the United States of America.  (Applause.)

So it's a good start.  But the reason we're all here in the heat today is because we know we've got more to do.

In my State of the Union address, I urged Congress to come up with a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one that Republican and Democratic senators worked on together a few years ago.  And I still want to see that happen.  I'm willing to work with anyone to make that happen.

But this is a challenge that does not pause for partisan gridlock.  It demands our attention now.  And this is my plan to meet it—a plan to cut carbon pollution; a plan to protect our country from the impacts of climate change; and a plan to lead the world in a coordinated assault on a changing climate.  (Applause.)

This plan begins with cutting carbon pollution by changing the way we use energy—using less dirty energy, using more clean energy, wasting less energy throughout our economy. 

Forty-three years ago, Congress passed a law called the Clean Air Act of 1970.  (Applause.)  It was a good law.  The reasoning behind it was simple:  New technology can protect our health by protecting the air we breathe from harmful pollution.  And that law passed the Senate unanimously.  Think about that—it passed the Senate unanimously.  It passed the House of Representatives 375 to 1.  I don’t know who the one guy was—I haven’t looked that up.  (Laughter.)  You can barely get that many votes to name a post office these days.  (Laughter.)

It was signed into law by a Republican President.  It was later strengthened by another Republican President.  This used to be a bipartisan issue. 

Six years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants covered by that same Clean Air Act.  (Applause.)  And they required the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, to determine whether they’re a threat to our health and welfare. In 2009, the EPA determined that they are a threat to both our health and our welfare in many different ways—from dirtier air to more common heat waves—and, therefore, subject to regulation. 

Today, about 40 percent of America’s carbon pollution comes from our power plants.  But here’s the thing:  Right now, there are no federal limits to the amount of carbon pollution that those plants can pump into our air.  None.  Zero.  We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury and sulfur and arsenic in our air or our water, but power plants can still dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air for free.  That’s not right, that’s not safe, and it needs to stop.  (Applause.) 

So today, for the sake of our children, and the health and safety of all Americans, I’m directing the Environmental Protection Agency to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants, and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.  (Applause.)

I’m also directing the EPA to develop these standards in an open and transparent way, to provide flexibility to different states with different needs, and build on the leadership that many states, and cities, and companies have already shown.  In fact, many power companies have already begun modernizing their plants, and creating new jobs in the process.  Others have shifted to burning cleaner natural gas instead of dirtier fuel sources.

Nearly a dozen states have already implemented or are implementing their own market-based programs to reduce carbon pollution.  More than 25 have set energy efficiency targets.  More than 35 have set renewable energy targets.  Over 1,000 mayors have signed agreements to cut carbon pollution.  So the idea of setting higher pollution standards for our power plants is not new.  It’s just time for Washington to catch up with the rest of the country.  And that's what we intend to do.  (Applause.) 

Now, what you’ll hear from the special interests and their allies in Congress is that this will kill jobs and crush the economy, and basically end American free enterprise as we know it.  And the reason I know you'll hear those things is because that's what they said every time America sets clear rules and better standards for our air and our water and our children’s health.  And every time, they've been wrong. 

For example, in 1970, when we decided through the Clean Air Act to do something about the smog that was choking our cities—and, by the way, most young people here aren't old enough to remember what it was like, but when I was going to school in 1979-1980 in Los Angeles, there were days where folks couldn't go outside.  And the sunsets were spectacular because of all the pollution in the air.

But at the time when we passed the Clean Air Act to try to get rid of some of this smog, some of the same doomsayers were saying new pollution standards will decimate the auto industry.  Guess what—it didn’t happen.  Our air got cleaner. 

In 1990, when we decided to do something about acid rain, they said our electricity bills would go up, the lights would go off, businesses around the country would suffer—I quote—“a quiet death.”  None of it happened, except we cut acid rain dramatically. 

See, the problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that it suggests a fundamental lack of faith in American business and American ingenuity.  (Applause.)  These critics seem to think that when we ask our businesses to innovate and reduce pollution and lead, they can't or they won't do it.  They'll just kind of give up and quit.  But in America, we know that’s not true.  Look at our history.

When we restricted cancer-causing chemicals in plastics and leaded fuel in our cars, it didn’t end the plastics industry or the oil industry.  American chemists came up with better substitutes.  When we phased out CFCs—the gases that were depleting the ozone layer—it didn’t kill off refrigerators or air-conditioners or deodorant.  (Laughter.)  American workers and businesses figured out how to do it better without harming the environment as much.

The fuel standards that we put in place just a few years ago didn’t cripple automakers.  The American auto industry retooled, and today, our automakers are selling the best cars in the world at a faster rate than they have in five years—with more hybrid, more plug-in, more fuel-efficient cars for everybody to choose from.  (Applause.)

So the point is, if you look at our history, don’t bet against American industry.  Don’t bet against American workers.  Don’t tell folks that we have to choose between the health of our children or the health of our economy.  (Applause.)

The old rules may say we can’t protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time, but in America, we’ve always used new technologies—we’ve used science; we’ve used research and development and discovery to make the old rules obsolete.

Today, we use more clean energy –- more renewables and natural gas -– which is supporting hundreds of thousands of good jobs.  We waste less energy, which saves you money at the pump and in your pocketbooks.  And guess what—our economy is 60 percent bigger than it was 20 years ago, while our carbon emissions are roughly back to where they were 20 years ago.

So, obviously, we can figure this out.  It’s not an either/or; it’s a both/and.  We’ve got to look after our children; we have to look after our future; and we have to grow the economy and create jobs.  We can do all of that as long as we don’t fear the future; instead we seize it.  (Applause.) 

And, by the way, don’t take my word for it—recently, more than 500 businesses, including giants like GM and Nike, issued a Climate Declaration, calling action on climate change “one of the great economic opportunities of the 21st century.”  Walmart is working to cut its carbon pollution by 20 percent and transition completely to renewable energy.  (Applause.)  Walmart deserves a cheer for that.  (Applause.)  But think about it.  Would the biggest company, the biggest retailer in America—would they really do that if it weren’t good for business, if it weren’t good for their shareholders?

A low-carbon, clean energy economy can be an engine of growth for decades to come.  And I want America to build that engine.  I want America to build that future—right here in the United States of America.  That’s our task.  (Applause.)

Now, one thing I want to make sure everybody understands—this does not mean that we’re going to suddenly stop producing fossil fuels.  Our economy wouldn’t run very well if it did.  And transitioning to a clean energy economy takes time.  But when the doomsayers trot out the old warnings that these ambitions will somehow hurt our energy supply, just remind them that America produced more oil than we have in 15 years.  What is true is that we can’t just drill our way out of the energy and climate challenge that we face.  (Applause.)  That’s not possible.

I put forward in the past an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but our energy strategy must be about more than just producing more oil.  And, by the way, it’s certainly got to be about more than just building one pipeline.  (Applause.)

Now, I know there’s been, for example, a lot of controversy surrounding the proposal to build a pipeline, the Keystone pipeline, that would carry oil from Canadian tar sands down to refineries in the Gulf.  And the State Department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal.  That’s how it’s always been done.  But I do want to be clear:  Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest.  And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.  (Applause.)  The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.  It’s relevant. 

Now, even as we’re producing more domestic oil, we’re also producing more cleaner-burning natural gas than any other country on Earth.  And, again, sometimes there are disputes about natural gas, but let me say this:  We should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer because, in the medium term at least, it not only can provide safe, cheap power, but it can also help reduce our carbon emissions.

Federally supported technology has helped our businesses drill more effectively and extract more gas.  And now, we'll keep working with the industry to make drilling safer and cleaner, to make sure that we're not seeing methane emissions, and to put people to work modernizing our natural gas infrastructure so that we can power more homes and businesses with cleaner energy.

The bottom line is natural gas is creating jobs.  It's lowering many families' heat and power bills.  And it's the transition fuel that can power our economy with less carbon pollution even as our businesses work to develop and then deploy more of the technology required for the even cleaner energy economy of the future.

And that brings me to the second way that we're going to reduce carbon pollution—by using more clean energy.  Over the past four years, we've doubled the electricity that we generate from zero-carbon wind and solar power.  (Applause.)  And that means jobs—jobs manufacturing the wind turbines that now generate enough electricity to power nearly 15 million homes; jobs installing the solar panels that now generate more than four times the power at less cost than just a few years ago.

I know some Republicans in Washington dismiss these jobs, but those who do need to call home—because 75 percent of all wind energy in this country is generated in Republican districts. (Laughter.)  And that may explain why last year, Republican governors in Kansas and Oklahoma and Iowa—Iowa, by the way, a state that harnesses almost 25 percent of its electricity from the wind—helped us in the fight to extend tax credits for wind energy manufacturers and producers.  (Applause.)  Tens of thousands good jobs were on the line, and those jobs were worth the fight.

And countries like China and Germany are going all in in the race for clean energy.  I believe Americans build things better than anybody else.  I want America to win that race, but we can't win it if we're not in it.  (Applause.)

So the plan I'm announcing today will help us double again our energy from wind and sun.  Today, I'm directing the Interior Department to green light enough private, renewable energy capacity on public lands to power more than 6 million homes by 2020.  (Applause.)

The Department of Defense—the biggest energy consumer in America—will install 3 gigawatts of renewable power on its bases, generating about the same amount of electricity each year as you'd get from burning 3 million tons of coal.  (Applause.) 

And because billions of your tax dollars continue to still subsidize some of the most profitable corporations in the history of the world, my budget once again calls for Congress to end the tax breaks for big oil companies, and invest in the clean-energy companies that will fuel our future.  (Applause.)

Now, the third way to reduce carbon pollution is to waste less energy—in our cars, our homes, our businesses.  The fuel standards we set over the past few years mean that by the middle of the next decade, the cars and trucks we buy will go twice as far on a gallon of gas.  That means you’ll have to fill up half as often; we’ll all reduce carbon pollution.  And we built on that success by setting the first-ever standards for heavy-duty trucks and buses and vans.  And in the coming months, we’ll partner with truck makers to do it again for the next generation of vehicles. 

Meanwhile, the energy we use in our homes and our businesses and our factories, our schools, our hospitals—that’s responsible for about one-third of our greenhouse gases.  The good news is simple upgrades don’t just cut that pollution; they put people to work—manufacturing and installing smarter lights and windows and sensors and appliances.  And the savings show up in our electricity bills every month—forever.  That’s why we’ve set new energy standards for appliances like refrigerators and dishwashers.  And today, our businesses are building better ones that will also cut carbon pollution and cut consumers’ electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars. 

That means, by the way, that our federal government also has to lead by example.   I’m proud that federal agencies have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by more than 15 percent since I took office.  But we can do even better than that.  So today, I’m setting a new goal:  Your federal government will consume 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources within the next seven years.  We are going to set that goal.  (Applause.)

We’ll also encourage private capital to get off the sidelines and get into these energy-saving investments.  And by the end of the next decade, these combined efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings will reduce carbon pollution by at least three billion tons.  That’s an amount equal to what our entire energy sector emits in nearly half a year.

So I know these standards don’t sound all that sexy, but think of it this way:  That’s the equivalent of planting 7.6 billion trees and letting them grow for 10 years—all while doing the dishes.  It is a great deal and we need to be doing it. (Applause.) 

So using less dirty energy, transitioning to cleaner sources of energy, wasting less energy through our economy is where we need to go.  And this plan will get us there faster.  But I want to be honest—this will not get us there overnight.  The hard truth is carbon pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades now.  And even if we Americans do our part, the planet will slowly keep warming for some time to come.  The seas will slowly keep rising and storms will get more severe, based on the science.  It's like tapping the brakes of a car before you come to a complete stop and then can shift into reverse.  It's going to take time for carbon emissions to stabilize.

So in the meantime, we're going to need to get prepared.  And that’s why this plan will also protect critical sectors of our economy and prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change that we cannot avoid.  States and cities across the country are already taking it upon themselves to get ready.  Miami Beach is hardening its water supply against seeping saltwater.  We’re partnering with the state of Florida to restore Florida’s natural clean water delivery system—the Everglades.

The overwhelmingly Republican legislature in Texas voted to spend money on a new water development bank as a long-running drought cost jobs and forced a town to truck in water from the outside.

New York City is fortifying its 520 miles of coastline as an insurance policy against more frequent and costly storms.  And what we’ve learned from Hurricane Sandy and other disasters is that we’ve got to build smarter, more resilient infrastructure that can protect our homes and businesses, and withstand more powerful storms.  That means stronger seawalls, natural barriers, hardened power grids, hardened water systems, hardened fuel supplies.

So the budget I sent Congress includes funding to support communities that build these projects, and this plan directs federal agencies to make sure that any new project funded with taxpayer dollars is built to withstand increased flood risks. 

And we’ll partner with communities seeking help to prepare for droughts and floods, reduce the risk of wildfires, protect the dunes and wetlands that pull double duty as green space and as natural storm barriers.  And we'll also open our climate data and NASA climate imagery to the public, to make sure that cities and states assess risk under different climate scenarios, so that we don’t waste money building structures that don’t withstand the next storm. 

So that's what my administration will do to support the work already underway across America, not only to cut carbon pollution, but also to protect ourselves from climate change.  But as I think everybody here understands, no nation can solve this challenge alone—not even one as powerful as ours.  And that’s why the final part of our plan calls on America to lead—lead international efforts to combat a changing climate.  (Applause.)

And make no mistake—the world still looks to America to lead.  When I spoke to young people in Turkey a few years ago, the first question I got wasn't about the challenges that part of the world faces.  It was about the climate challenge that we all face, and America's role in addressing it.  And it was a fair question, because as the world's largest economy and second-largest carbon emitter, as a country with unsurpassed ability to drive innovation and scientific breakthroughs, as the country that people around the world continue to look to in times of crisis, we've got a vital role to play.  We can't stand on the sidelines.  We've got a unique responsibility.  And the steps that I've outlined today prove that we're willing to meet that responsibility.

Though all America's carbon pollution fell last year, global carbon pollution rose to a record high.  That’s a problem.  Developing countries are using more and more energy, and tens of millions of people entering a global middle class naturally want to buy cars and air-conditioners of their own, just like us.  Can't blame them for that.  And when you have conversations with poor countries, they'll say, well, you went through these stages of development—why can't we? 

But what we also have to recognize is these same countries are also more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than we are.  They don’t just have as much to lose, they probably have more to lose.

Developing nations with some of the fastest-rising levels of carbon pollution are going to have to take action to meet this challenge alongside us.  They're watching what we do, but we've got to make sure that they're stepping up to the plate as well.  We compete for business with them, but we also share a planet.  And we have to all shoulder the responsibility for keeping the planet habitable, or we're going to suffer the consequences—together. 

So to help more countries transitioning to cleaner sources of energy and to help them do it faster, we're going to partner with our private sector to apply private sector technological know-how in countries that transition to natural gas.  We’ve mobilized billions of dollars in private capital for clean energy projects around the world.

Today, I'm calling for an end of public financing for new coal plants overseas—(applause)—unless they deploy carbon-capture technologies, or there's no other viable way for the poorest countries to generate electricity.  And I urge other countries to join this effort.

And I'm directing my administration to launch negotiations toward global free trade in environmental goods and services, including clean energy technology, to help more countries skip past the dirty phase of development and join a global low-carbon economy.  They don’t have to repeat all the same mistakes that we made.  (Applause.) 

We've also intensified our climate cooperation with major emerging economies like India and Brazil, and China—the world’s largest emitter.  So, for example, earlier this month, President Xi of China and I reached an important agreement to jointly phase down our production and consumption of dangerous hydrofluorocarbons, and we intend to take more steps together in the months to come.  It will make a difference.  It’s a significant step in the reduction of carbon emissions.  (Applause.) 

And finally, my administration will redouble our efforts to engage our international partners in reaching a new global agreement to reduce carbon pollution through concrete action.  (Applause.) 

Four years ago, in Copenhagen, every major country agreed, for the first time, to limit carbon pollution by 2020.  Two years ago, we decided to forge a new agreement beyond 2020 that would apply to all countries, not just developed countries.

What we need is an agreement that’s ambitious—because that’s what the scale of the challenge demands.  We need an inclusive agreement -– because every country has to play its part.  And we need an agreement that’s flexible—because different nations have different needs.  And if we can come together and get this right, we can define a sustainable future for your generation.

So that’s my plan.  (Applause.)  The actions I’ve announced today should send a strong signal to the world that America intends to take bold action to reduce carbon pollution.  We will continue to lead by the power of our example, because that’s what the United States of America has always done. 

I am convinced this is the fight America can, and will, lead in the 21st century.  And I’m convinced this is a fight that America must lead.  But it will require all of us to do our part. We’ll need scientists to design new fuels, and we’ll need farmers to grow new fuels.  We’ll need engineers to devise new technologies, and we’ll need businesses to make and sell those technologies.  We’ll need workers to operate assembly lines that hum with high-tech, zero-carbon components, but we’ll also need builders to hammer into place the foundations for a new clean energy era.

We’re going to need to give special care to people and communities that are unsettled by this transition—not just here in the United States but around the world.  And those of us in positions of responsibility, we’ll need to be less concerned with the judgment of special interests and well-connected donors, and more concerned with the judgment of posterity.  (Applause.)  Because you and your children, and your children’s children, will have to live with the consequences of our decisions.

As I said before, climate change has become a partisan issue, but it hasn’t always been.  It wasn’t that long ago that Republicans led the way on new and innovative policies to tackle these issues.  Richard Nixon opened the EPA.  George H.W. Bush declared—first U.S. President to declare—“human activities are changing the atmosphere in unexpected and unprecedented ways.”  Someone who never shies away from a challenge, John McCain, introduced a market-based cap-and-trade bill to slow carbon pollution.

The woman that I’ve chosen to head up the EPA, Gina McCarthy, she’s worked—(applause)—she’s terrific.  Gina has worked for the EPA in my administration, but she’s also worked for five Republican governors.  She’s got a long track record of working with industry and business leaders to forge common-sense solutions.  Unfortunately, she’s being held up in the Senate. She’s been held up for months, forced to jump through hoops no Cabinet nominee should ever have to –- not because she lacks qualifications, but because there are too many in the Republican Party right now who think that the Environmental Protection Agency has no business protecting our environment from carbon pollution.  The Senate should confirm her without any further obstruction or delay.  (Applause.) 

But more broadly, we’ve got to move beyond partisan politics on this issue.  I want to be clear—I am willing to work with anybody –- Republicans, Democrats, independents, libertarians, greens -– anybody—to combat this threat on behalf of our kids. I am open to all sorts of new ideas, maybe better ideas, to make sure that we deal with climate change in a way that promotes jobs and growth.

Nobody has a monopoly on what is a very hard problem, but I don’t have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real.  (Applause.)  We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.  (Applause.)  Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it’s not going to protect you from the coming storm.  And ultimately, we will be judged as a people, and as a society, and as a country on where we go from here.

Our founders believed that those of us in positions of power are elected not just to serve as custodians of the present, but as caretakers of the future. And they charged us to make decisions with an eye on a longer horizon than the arc of our own political careers.  That’s what the American people expect.  That’s what they deserve. 

And someday, our children, and our children’s children, will look at us in the eye and they'll ask us, did we do all that we could when we had the chance to deal with this problem and leave them a cleaner, safer, more stable world?  And I want to be able to say, yes, we did.  Don’t you want that?  (Applause.)

Americans are not a people who look backwards; we're a people who look forward.  We're not a people who fear what the future holds; we shape it. What we need in this fight are citizens who will stand up, and speak up, and compel us to do what this moment demands.

Understand this is not just a job for politicians.  So I'm going to need all of you to educate your classmates, your colleagues, your parents, your friends. Tell them what’s at stake. Speak up at town halls, church groups, PTA meetings.  Push back on misinformation.  Speak up for the facts.  Broaden the circle of those who are willing to stand up for our future.  (Applause.)

Convince those in power to reduce our carbon pollution.  Push your own communities to adopt smarter practices.  Invest.  Divest.  (Applause.)  Remind folks there's no contradiction between a sound environment and strong economic growth.  And remind everyone who represents you at every level of government that sheltering future generations against the ravages of climate change is a prerequisite for your vote.  Make yourself heard on this issue.  (Applause.) 

I understand the politics will be tough.  The challenge we must accept will not reward us with a clear moment of victory.  There’s no gathering army to defeat.  There's no peace treaty to sign.  When President Kennedy said we’d go to the moon within the decade, we knew we’d build a spaceship and we’d meet the goal.  Our progress here will be measured differently—in crises averted, in a planet preserved.  But can we imagine a more worthy goal?  For while we may not live to see the full realization of our ambition, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world we leave to our children will be better off for what we did.

“It makes you realize,” that astronaut said all those years ago, “just what you have back there on Earth.”  And that image in the photograph, that bright blue ball rising over the moon’s surface, containing everything we hold dear—the laughter of children, a quiet sunset, all the hopes and dreams of posterity —that’s what’s at stake.  That’s what we’re fighting for.  And if we remember that, I’m absolutely sure we'll succeed.

Thank you.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.) 

Text of President Obama's speech is courtesy of the White House Office of the Press Secretary.

Search the United Nations

Un headquarters, 24 september 2021, opening remarks to high-level dialogue on energy, antónio guterres.

[All-English version; scroll further down for bilingual, as delivered version]

Excellencies, Friends,

Welcome to the High-Level Dialogue on Energy.

This event is long overdue.

It has been 40 years since we last discussed energy at the highest level.

Today, we face a moment of truth.

Close to 760 million people still lack access to electricity.

Some 2.6 billion people lack access to clean cooking solutions.

And how we produce and use energy is the main cause of the climate crisis.

Emissions from energy account for about 75 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions.

So, we have a double imperative – to end energy poverty and to limit climate change.

And we have an answer that will fulfil both imperatives.

Affordable, renewable and sustainable energy for all.

This is the objective of Sustainable Development Goal 7.

Investing in clean, affordable energy for all will improve the well-being of billions of people. 

It can create the green jobs that we urgently need for COVID-19 recovery.

It will advance all the Sustainable Development Goals.

And it is the single most important solution to avert climate catastrophe.

We have the tools we need.

Solar photovoltaics are now the cheapest power source in most countries.

And renewables yield three times more jobs than the fossil fuel sector.

Solar and wind are the stars of our energy system.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, they have been the only sources of energy that continued to grow.

But it’s not nearly fast enough.

We are still a long way from being able to provide affordable and clean energy for all.

In 11 sub-Saharan countries alone, one-quarter of health facilities lack access to electricity.

Globally, as many as nine out of ten people breathe polluted air, leading to some 8 million premature deaths each year.

And disasters made worse by climate change are increasing.

Access to clean, renewable energy is, quite simply, the difference between life and death.

We must solve these challenges this decade.

And we must start today.

Without deep and rapid decarbonization of our energy systems over the next 10 years, we will never reach the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5-degrees.

This will be fatal to the Sustainable Development Goals, to us all and the planet.

Billions of people will be condemned to more poverty and more ill-health while the ecosystems we all rely on collapse.

This is a profound injustice to current and future generations.

But this bleak future is not inevitable. 

Science has shown us exactly how to avoid it.

To limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees we must reduce emissions by 45 per cent below 2010 levels by 2030 and reach net zero emissions by 2050.

All countries have a role.

Developing nations need to see the promised mobilization of $100 billion dollars a year for climate action.

And we must ensure 50 per cent of climate finance is directed towards adaptation and resilience to the climate disruption that is to come.

Today’s meeting presents a historic opportunity.

I count on all countries – especially major emitters – to rise to this moment along with the major players from the world of business and finance.

I am pleased to see several of the major emitters – countries and sectors – demonstrating leadership through the High-Level Dialogue process along with bold commitments to act.

Excellencies, dear Friends,

I see four priorities for a sustainable energy future.

First, we must close the energy access gap by 2030.

That means cutting in half the number of people without access to electricity by 2025.   And it means providing over 1 billion people with access to clean cooking solutions by 2025.  

The cost of closing the energy access gap is modest: around $35 billion dollars a year for electricity access and $25 billion dollars a year for clean cooking.  

Second, we must rapidly shift to decarbonized energy systems.

By 2030, solar and wind capacity should quadruple to respectively 630 and 390 gigawatts added annual capacity.

And we must intensify our efforts to improve energy efficiency.

There must be no new coal plants built after 2021.

OECD countries must commit to phasing out existing coal capacity by 2030, with all other countries following suit by 2040. 

There is no reason for countries or investors to finance new fossil fuel exploration, licensing or productions infrastructure.

These will become stranded assets.

Clean, renewable energy solutions provide the best business opportunities.

International cooperation must be dramatically scaled up to catalyze the finance and investment needed to accelerate such energy transitions, especially in developing countries and small island developing states. 

Third, to reach universal energy access by 2030 and maintain a net-zero trajectory by mid-century, we must mobilize predictable finance at scale and promote technology transfer to the developing world.

We need to triple investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency to $5 trillion dollars a year.

And access to finance by developing countries must be simplified, facilitated and expedited.

We need to re-direct fossil fuel subsidies to renewables and put a price on carbon.

And all development banks – multilateral, regional, and national – need to help countries as they transition their economies.

Public and private finance must be urgently mobilized and deployed at scale to accelerate the global phase out of coal power generation.

Fourth, we must ensure no one is left behind in the race to a net zero future.

The global energy transition must be just, inclusive, and equitable.

No two national energy transition pathways will be identical.

Investing in renewable energy – instead of spending billions on propping up fossil fuels – can create tens of millions of good jobs and empower the most vulnerable.

However, investments will need to be made in retraining and in social safety nets.

We can and must pursue an agenda that is good for people and planet.

The commitments coming through the UN Energy-led process are a real signal of what is possible. 

Every country, city, financial institution, company and civil society organization has a role to play in building a sustainable and equitable energy future.

I ask all of you to rise to this moment and be bold.

Demonstrate your commitment to this energy future in the form of an ‘Energy Compact,’ which can deliver on a global roadmap to achieve our goals over the next decade.

UN-Energy will continue to help drive [action] through the UN system.

Today, I call on all governments to build on international cooperation and provide the global package of support needed for a just, inclusive and sustainable energy transition that ensures renewable energy access for all.

We cannot wait another 40 years.

The age of renewable, affordable energy access for all must start today.

And I thank you.

*************************************************************************************************

[Bilingual, as delivered version]

Chers amis,

Nous avons tous les outils en main.

Dans la plupart des pays, le solaire photovoltaïque est désormais la source d’énergie la moins chère.

Le secteur des énergies renouvelables génère trois fois plus d’emplois que celui des combustibles fossiles.

Les énergies solaire et éolienne sont les étoiles montantes de notre système énergétique.

Durant la pandémie de COVID-19, ces sources d’énergie ont été les seules à continuer de se développer.

Mais bien trop lentement, hélas.

Nous sommes encore loin de pouvoir fournir une énergie propre et abordable pour tous.

Dans 11 pays subsahariens, un quart des établissements de santé n’ont pas accès à l’électricité.

Près de 9 personnes sur 10 dans le monde respirent un air pollué, qui est la cause, chaque année, de 8 millions de décès prématurés.

Les catastrophes naturelles, amplifiées par les changements climatiques, se multiplient.

L’accès à des sources d’énergie propres et renouvelables est tout simplement une question de vie ou de mort.

Mesdames et Messieurs les représentants,

Il nous faut résoudre ces problèmes dans les dix prochaines années…

Et il nous faut commencer dès aujourd’hui.

Si nous ne décarbonons pas rapidement et radicalement nos systèmes énergétiques dans les dix prochaines années, nous n’arriverons jamais à limiter l’augmentation de la température à 1,5 degré Celsius, conformément à l’objectif fixé dans l’Accord de Paris.

Ce serait un coup fatal pour les Objectifs de développement durable pour nous tous et la planète.

Des milliards de personnes sombreront dans la pauvreté et la maladie, tandis que les écosystèmes dont nous dépendons seront anéantis.

Il s’agit là d’une profonde injustice pour les générations d’aujourd’hui et de demain.

Mais nous ne sommes pas condamnés à ce sombre destin. 

La science nous montre très précisément comment y échapper.

Pour limiter l'augmentation de la température à 1,5 degré Celsius, il faut d'ici à 2030 réduire les émissions de 45 % par rapport aux niveaux de 2010 et atteindre zéro émission nette d’ici à 2050.

Chaque pays a un rôle à jouer.

Il faut tenir la promesse faite aux pays en développement de mobiliser 100 milliards de dollars par an en faveur de l’action climatique.

Et il faut aussi que 50 pour cent du financement climatique soit consacré aux mesures d’adaptation et de résilience face aux perturbations climatiques à venir.

La réunion d’aujourd’hui représente une occasion historique.

Je compte sur tous les pays – et en particulier les grands émetteurs – pour se montrer à la hauteur de la tâche, aux côtés des principaux acteurs du monde des affaires et de la finance.

Je suis heureux de constater que plusieurs grands émetteurs – aussi bien des pays que des secteurs d’activité – font preuve de leadership dans le cadre de ce Dialogue de haut niveau, et présentent des promesses d’action audacieuses.

There is no reason for countries or investors to finance new fossil fuel exploration, licensing or production infrastructure.

• U.N. Secretariat
• Development Environment, climate change Sustainable Development Goals
• Daily Schedule
• Appointment Process
• Role of the Secretary-General
• Former Secretaries-General
• Official Travels
• Deputy Secretary-General
• Senior Management Group
• Global Leadership
• Messengers of Peace
• Annual Report on the Work of the Organization
• Coordinator for Multilingualism
• Public Disclosure
• Opinion pieces/Op-eds
• Secretariat
• Department of Global Communications
• Spokesperson's Office
• Scientific Advisory Board

• News, Stories & Speeches
• Get Involved
• Structure and leadership
• Committee of Permanent Representatives
• UN Environment Assembly
• Funding and partnerships
• Policies and strategies
• Evaluation Office
• Secretariats and Conventions

• Asia and the Pacific
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• New York Office
• North America
• Climate action
• Nature action
• Chemicals and pollution action
• Digital Transformations
• Disasters and conflicts
• Environment under review
• Environmental rights and governance
• Extractives
• Fresh Water
• Green economy
• Ocean, seas and coasts
• Resource efficiency
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Youth, education and environment
• Publications & data

Climate change is THE challenge of our times. It is up to us all to demonstrate leadership

Mr. Huang Runqiu, CCICED Chinese Executive Vice Chairperson Minister of Ecology and Environment 

Steven Guilbeault, International Executive Vice Chairperson of CCICED, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Canada, 

Fellow Vice Chairpersons 

Excellencies, colleagues and friends.  

It is an honour to serve as Vice Chairperson of the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED) alongside so many distinguished colleagues. I am pleased to be in Beijing for this Annual General Meeting (AGM).  

By providing key policy recommendations and setting the CCICED’s research priorities for the next year, this AGM can strengthen China’s efforts to address the three environmental planetary crises: the crisis of climate change, the crisis of nature and biodiversity loss, and the crisis of pollution and waste.  

Poor and marginalized communities have been suffering for years as result of the three crises. This suffering is now spreading to every nation and community. Our planet, our health and our economies are in serious and immediate peril.  

July was the hottest month in recorded history. China hit a record temperature of 52.2 degrees C in Turpan, close to the Kumtag Desert. Four billion people in the Asia-Pacific region are exposed to air pollution. Nature and biodiversity loss continues, with fears growing over the impacts on food systems.   

And so it is clear that the entire world needs to rapidly pivot in every sector to dampen these three crises. That is why I am particularly pleased that the CCICED’s recommendations this year focus on areas that can deliver these pivots – from emissions reductions to green finance to implementing the Global Biodiversity Framework. These are areas that exactly align with UNEP’s mandate. Let’s look at just a few.  

One, carbon neutrality.   

China’s commitments to peak emissions before 2030 and become carbon neutral before 2060 are welcome. And China is, of course, making strides. As the CCICED’s 2022-2023 policy study showed, China contributed around one third of the world’s installed renewable energy capacity in 2021. These numbers are remarkable.   

Allow me to zoom in on climate for a moment and to highlight what I highlight in many of my speeches across the world. It is my contention that climate change is bigger than anything planet earth and, we, its human occupants, have ever experienced. Bigger than politics. Bigger than competition amongst and between nations. Bigger than nations and their civilisations and bigger than our collective history. It is, in the words of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, an existential crisis. I have therefore highlighted in my talks and speeches across the world that climate change cannot be lost in the squabble between nations. Cannot be lost when other crises appear on our doorstep. Lost in the squabble of domestic politics. Lost in the squabble of trade and competition. Or get pushed to the back burner to win the next election or to pacify domestic climate deniers. Or pushed to the back burner to address economic woes. Climate change is THE challenge of our times. And it is up to us all to demonstrate leadership. Here and now.  

For China, therefore, the CCICED recommendation to formulate a systematic coal power phase-out policy involving a number of considerations to maximize benefits is therefore noteworthy of attention. Similarly, the recommendation to move forward faster, science-based strategic planning and policy design are key in areas such as implementing the “1+N” policy system, promoting clean vehicles and boosting energy efficiency. And, of course, I echo the UN Secretary-General’s call for no new coal power plants, domestically or financed abroad.  

China’s renewable energy industry is second to none. This sector is expanding at exponential speed for which China is to be congratulated. With an intensification on the efforts to control and reduce energy demand and with a focus on energy efficiency and with continued focus on acceleration of decarbonization of the high-emitting industry sectors with a clear target of phasing down coal use, China holds the promise of leading the world in demonstrating ambition for climate action.  

Two, reboot consumption and production.   

Unsustainable consumption and production are fuel to the fire of the three crises, so the CCICED’s taskforce on this issue is important. Even more important is China’s full engagement in finalizing the global deal to end plastic pollution. A deal that, by 2024, must be ready to enable the complete redesign of products, packaging and systems. A deal that reduces plastic use, creates the conditions for true circularity and delivers justice for vulnerable communities. We at UNEP applaud China’s 2018 decision no longer to accept imported plastic waste. We also recognize that when it comes to plastic pollution, we cannot recycle our way out of the mess of plastic pollution. We need a complete rethink. Numbers indicate that China produces some 30% of the world’s plastic. So there are tremendous opportunities here for Chinese R&D to invest in reinventing the products that we envelope in plastic. Must the products be liquid? Can the products be delivered in dry form? What are the alternative packaging opportunities? There is a new economy ahead to replace plastic and the early bird gets the worm. So the CCICED’s recommendation for better guidelines in China on Extended Producer Responsibility, the reuse and recycling of plastic products, and the development of viable alternatives are in line with this reboot.   

Three, implementing the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).    

Let me here start out with congratulating China’s Presidency of COP15 under the able leadership of Minister Huang. Let me also stress that the goals of the GBF are consistent with China’s ideal of ecological civilization. We will delve more into this topic during tomorrow’s Open Forum. Now, let me just say this: wins under the GBF that restore nature’s infrastructure are wins across triple planetary crisis. We need to redline protected areas, fulfil the restoration agenda, and finance nature-based solutions. I ask China to demonstrate the same drive it showed in getting the GBF agreed to implementing the framework itself.  

The CCICED has much more on its AGM agenda and draft workplan. Reorienting finance and investment to align with the health of the planet. Unlocking the potential of digital transformation. Harnessing the Blue Economy for food security, jobs and carbon neutrality.  

What is clear is that the CCICED and UNEP want the same thing: a healthier planet upon which people of all nations live in harmony with nature and each other. I look forward to our discussions on how UNEP can support the CCICED and China to make this dream a reality.  

• Sustainable Development
• Biodiversity
• Circular economy

Related Content

Related Sustainable Development Goals

© 2024 UNEP Terms of Use Privacy   Report Project Concern Report Scam Contact Us

Renewable Energy

Renewable energy comes from sources that will not be used up in our lifetimes, such as the sun and wind.

Earth Science, Experiential Learning, Engineering, Geology

Wind Turbines in a Sheep Pasture

Wind turbines use the power of wind to generate energy. This is just one source of renewable energy.

Photograph by Jesus Keller/ Shutterstock

The wind, the sun, and Earth are sources of  renewable energy . These energy sources naturally renew, or replenish themselves.

Wind, sunlight, and the planet have energy that transforms in ways we can see and feel. We can see and feel evidence of the transfer of energy from the sun to Earth in the sunlight shining on the ground and the warmth we feel when sunlight shines on our skin. We can see and feel evidence of the transfer of energy in wind’s ability to pull kites higher into the sky and shake the leaves on trees. We can see and feel evidence of the transfer of energy in the geothermal energy of steam vents and geysers .

People have created different ways to capture the energy from these renewable sources.

Solar Energy

Solar energy can be captured “actively” or “passively.”

Active solar energy uses special technology to capture the sun’s rays. The two main types of equipment are photovoltaic cells (also called PV cells or solar cells) and mirrors that focus sunlight in a specific spot. These active solar technologies use sunlight to generate electricity , which we use to power lights, heating systems, computers, and televisions.

Passive solar energy does not use any equipment. Instead, it gets energy from the way sunlight naturally changes throughout the day. For example, people can build houses so their windows face the path of the sun. This means the house will get more heat from the sun. It will take less energy from other sources to heat the house.

Other examples of passive solar technology are green roofs , cool roofs, and radiant barriers . Green roofs are completely covered with plants. Plants can get rid of pollutants in rainwater and air. They help make the local environment cleaner.

Cool roofs are painted white to better reflect sunlight. Radiant barriers are made of a reflective covering, such as aluminum. They both reflect the sun’s heat instead of absorbing it. All these types of roofs help lower the amount of energy needed to cool the building.

Advantages and Disadvantages There are many advantages to using solar energy. PV cells last for a long time, about 20 years.

However, there are reasons why solar power cannot be used as the only power source in a community. It can be expensive to install PV cells or build a building using passive solar technology.

Sunshine can also be hard to predict. It can be blocked by clouds, and the sun doesn’t shine at night. Different parts of Earth receive different amounts of sunlight based on location, the time of year, and the time of day.

Wind Energy

People have been harnessing the wind’s energy for a long, long time. Five-thousand years ago, ancient Egyptians made boats powered by the wind. In 200 B.C.E., people used windmills to grind grain in the Middle East and pump water in China.

Today, we capture the wind’s energy with wind turbines . A turbine is similar to a windmill; it has a very tall tower with two or three propeller-like blades at the top. These blades are turned by the wind. The blades turn a generator (located inside the tower), which creates electricity.

Groups of wind turbines are known as wind farms . Wind farms can be found near farmland, in narrow mountain passes, and even in the ocean, where there are steadier and stronger winds. Wind turbines anchored in the ocean are called “ offshore wind farms.”

Wind farms create electricity for nearby homes, schools, and other buildings.

Advantages and Disadvantages Wind energy can be very efficient . In places like the Midwest in the United States and along coasts, steady winds can provide cheap, reliable electricity.

Another great advantage of wind power is that it is a “clean” form of energy. Wind turbines do not burn fuel or emit any pollutants into the air.

Wind is not always a steady source of energy, however. Wind speed changes constantly, depending on the time of day, weather , and geographic location. Currently, it cannot be used to provide electricity for all our power needs.

Wind turbines can also be dangerous for bats and birds. These animals cannot always judge how fast the blades are moving and crash into them.

Geothermal Energy

Deep beneath the surface is Earth’s core . The center of Earth is extremely hot—thought to be over 6,000 °C (about 10,800 °F). The heat is constantly moving toward the surface.

We can see some of Earth’s heat when it bubbles to the surface. Geothermal energy can melt underground rocks into magma and cause the magma to bubble to the surface as lava . Geothermal energy can also heat underground sources of water and force it to spew out from the surface. This stream of water is called a geyser.

However, most of Earth’s heat stays underground and makes its way out very, very slowly.

We can access underground geothermal heat in different ways. One way of using geothermal energy is with “geothermal heat pumps.” A pipe of water loops between a building and holes dug deep underground. The water is warmed by the geothermal energy underground and brings the warmth aboveground to the building. Geothermal heat pumps can be used to heat houses, sidewalks, and even parking lots.

Another way to use geothermal energy is with steam. In some areas of the world, there is underground steam that naturally rises to the surface. The steam can be piped straight to a power plant. However, in other parts of the world, the ground is dry. Water must be injected underground to create steam. When the steam comes to the surface, it is used to turn a generator and create electricity.

In Iceland, there are large reservoirs of underground water. Almost 90 percent of people in Iceland use geothermal as an energy source to heat their homes and businesses.

Advantages and Disadvantages An advantage of geothermal energy is that it is clean. It does not require any fuel or emit any harmful pollutants into the air.

Geothermal energy is only avaiable in certain parts of the world. Another disadvantage of using geothermal energy is that in areas of the world where there is only dry heat underground, large quantities of freshwater are used to make steam. There may not be a lot of freshwater. People need water for drinking, cooking, and bathing.

Biomass Energy

Biomass is any material that comes from plants or microorganisms that were recently living. Plants create energy from the sun through photosynthesis . This energy is stored in the plants even after they die.

Trees, branches, scraps of bark, and recycled paper are common sources of biomass energy. Manure, garbage, and crops , such as corn, soy, and sugar cane, can also be used as biomass feedstocks .

We get energy from biomass by burning it. Wood chips, manure, and garbage are dried out and compressed into squares called “briquettes.” These briquettes are so dry that they do not absorb water. They can be stored and burned to create heat or generate electricity.

Biomass can also be converted into biofuel . Biofuels are mixed with regular gasoline and can be used to power cars and trucks. Biofuels release less harmful pollutants than pure gasoline.

Advantages and Disadvantages A major advantage of biomass is that it can be stored and then used when it is needed.

Growing crops for biofuels, however, requires large amounts of land and pesticides . Land could be used for food instead of biofuels. Some pesticides could pollute the air and water.

Biomass energy can also be a nonrenewable energy source. Biomass energy relies on biomass feedstocks—plants that are processed and burned to create electricity. Biomass feedstocks can include crops, such as corn or soy, as well as wood. If people do not replant biomass feedstocks as fast as they use them, biomass energy becomes a non-renewable energy source.

Hydroelectric Energy

Hydroelectric energy is made by flowing water. Most hydroelectric power plants are located on large dams , which control the flow of a river.

Dams block the river and create an artificial lake, or reservoir. A controlled amount of water is forced through tunnels in the dam. As water flows through the tunnels, it turns huge turbines and generates electricity.

Advantages and Disadvantages Hydroelectric energy is fairly inexpensive to harness. Dams do not need to be complex, and the resources to build them are not difficult to obtain. Rivers flow all over the world, so the energy source is available to millions of people.

Hydroelectric energy is also fairly reliable. Engineers control the flow of water through the dam, so the flow does not depend on the weather (the way solar and wind energies do).

However, hydroelectric power plants are damaging to the environment. When a river is dammed, it creates a large lake behind the dam. This lake (sometimes called a reservoir) drowns the original river habitat deep underwater. Sometimes, people build dams that can drown entire towns underwater. The people who live in the town or village must move to a new area.

Hydroelectric power plants don’t work for a very long time: Some can only supply power for 20 or 30 years. Silt , or dirt from a riverbed, builds up behind the dam and slows the flow of water.

Other Renewable Energy Sources

Scientists and engineers are constantly working to harness other renewable energy sources. Three of the most promising are tidal energy , wave energy , and algal (or algae) fuel.

Tidal energy harnesses the power of ocean tides to generate electricity. Some tidal energy projects use the moving tides to turn the blades of a turbine. Other projects use small dams to continually fill reservoirs at high tide and slowly release the water (and turn turbines) at low tide.

Wave energy harnesses waves from the ocean, lakes, or rivers. Some wave energy projects use the same equipment that tidal energy projects do—dams and standing turbines. Other wave energy projects float directly on waves. The water’s constant movement over and through these floating pieces of equipment turns turbines and creates electricity.

Algal fuel is a type of biomass energy that uses the unique chemicals in seaweed to create a clean and renewable biofuel. Algal fuel does not need the acres of cropland that other biofuel feedstocks do.

Renewable Nations

These nations (or groups of nations) produce the most energy using renewable resources. Many of them are also the leading producers of nonrenewable energy: China, European Union, United States, Brazil, and Canada

Articles & Profiles

Media credits.

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Last Updated

June 21, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

• Get involved

High Level Dialogue on Energy Ministerial Forums

Opening Speech

June 21, 2021

Photo: Knut-Eric Helle

Achim Steiner

UNDP Administrator

As prepared for delivery. 

Secretary-General,

Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Sustainable Energy for All and Co-Chair of UN-Energy, Damilola Ogunbiyi,

Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, Liu Zhenmin,

Excellencies,

-And a warm welcome to the 30 Global Theme Champions for the High-Level Dialogue on Energy who are hosting this week’s Ministerial Thematic Forums.

We stand on the cusp of a historic tipping point :

towards a clean energy revolution that will radically re-shape our societies and our economies -- improving the wellbeing of millions of people -- and helping to “heal” our planet.

But how fast and how fairly it happens is up to us.

Governments now have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make bold decisions that will secure a just energy transition – towards that greener, more sustainable future.

And standing shoulder-to-shoulder, the United Nations will be on hand to give countries and communities the support they need at this pivotal moment.

A “Just Transition” and why Energy Access is Critical

So why is this energy transition so critical?

The energy sector accounts for 73% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions -- it is the leading contributor to the climate crisis .

An energy transition to more renewable and efficient energy will slash the Greenhouse Gas emissions that are rapidly warming our planet.

At the same time, some 759 million people remain without access to electricity and all the opportunities it brings . It is critical that this energy transition is just, inclusive and supports sustainable development . Because:

• Bringing electricity to villages in Sub-Saharan Africa means schools can stay open for longer, allowing more people to obtain an education.
• The 1 billon people that rely on healthcare facilities with no access to electricity -- deserve better. New energy sources have the potential to massively boost health outcomes.
• The COVID-19 pandemic has made this problem especially evident: vaccines require a reliable cold chain . New clean, energy will help to power those cold chains.
• Nearly 1 in every 3 people (2.6 billion) across the globe do not have access to clean, safe fuels and technologies to cook, heat, or light their homes. Clean energy will drastically reduce air pollution caused by current cooking practices that lead to 3.8 million deaths every year -- the majority of whom are women and children .
• And new energy sources will enable access to affordable broadband internet – the “nervous system” of tomorrow’s green economy . That will allow thousands of Small and Medium Enterprises to do business online, for instance.

Energy access will bring dignity to millions of people and helps reduce existing inequalities.

The Approach

What can we do to accelerate this shift?

The energy access and just transition challenge requires a “system-level change”, a paradigm-shift in the way we think about energy – with new levels of support to countries. In particular:

• We need to put people first. We must take an “all of community” approach to energy access to secure electricity to rural areas, focused on the needs of people . Communities should be seen not only as beneficiaries but also as “co-creators” of future energy systems .
• We need to make sure that the transition to sustainable energy is just . That includes assisting fossil fuel-dependent communities to adapt to a green economy - including through reskilling and strengthening social protection.
• We need to urgently reduce th e growth in energy demand , the key driver of Green House Gas emissions, through energy efficiency measures and demand-side management . Doing so will also save money and create many good-paying jobs .
• And we must help to redirect international finance and investments towards sustainable energy . The International Energy Agency estimates that annual clean energy investment needs to more than triple by 2030 to over $4 trillion. Over the next three decades, that represents well over $100 trillion total in clean energy investment.

Secretary-General, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Our current energy system is the leading cause of the climate crisis, which hits the world’s poorest and most vulnerable the hardest.

Now is the moment to make bold choices – because these are choices that will define the wellbeing of people and planet for generations to come.

Today, I am delighted to join more than 30 ministers from the “Global Champions for the High-Level Dialogue on Energy” to issue an urgent call to Governments, international organisations, and businesses to radically step-up action on sustainable energy.

In solidarity, UNDP puts on the table its own energy promise, shaped as a two-part energy compact .

• First, UNDP commits to increasing energy access for those furthest behind. By speeding up investment in distributed renewable energy solutions, especially for those hardest to reach and in crisis contexts - we aim to increase access to clean and affordable energy for 500 million people . 
• The Africa Mini-Grid Programme , for example, is improving the financial viability of renewable energy mini-grids in 18 countries, encouraging private investment, lower tariffs, and expanded service. 
• Second, UNDP will work to accelerate the transition to renewable energy through systems changes that support inclusive, green economies , particularly in countries with low levels of renewable energy generation or poor energy efficiency improvement rates. 
• Recognizing that change will be disruptive, UNDP will work to ensure that such transitions are fair , and that their impact on vulnerable people is understood and mitigated. 
• UNDP will not be able to achieve its promise on its own . Key, strategic partnerships will be central elements of the compact, and will allow us to work across the UN system and leverage financial institutions, private sector actors, and other critical partners such as IRENA, UNEP and Sustainable Energy for All.”

Working together, we can seize the opportunity and ensure that 2021 is a historic “tipping point” towards sustainable energy for all.

Opening Remarks for 'Energy and the Economy: The New Energy Landscape' Conference

Thank you for that introduction, Daron.

It’s a pleasure to open today’s event. This is the Dallas and Kansas City Feds’ seventh joint conference on energy, and the topic is more vital than ever. As a newcomer to this region, where energy is so central to the economy, I’m eager to learn and delighted to participate in this conference for the first time.

I’d like to thank everyone who has worked so hard to bring this event together, and particularly thank Esther George, president of the Kansas City Fed, for her partnership on this effort over the years. President George has been an extraordinarily impactful leader across all aspects of the Federal Reserve’s mission during 40 years of service. She is a wise voice in our monetary policy discussions; she has brought about a leap forward in our nation’s payments system as executive sponsor of the forthcoming FedNow service; and she has been a strong advocate for effective and efficient regulation of banks, especially community banks, throughout her career. President George is retiring this January—but before that, she is going to do us the honor of giving today’s keynote address. Esther, I’m so grateful for everything I’ve learned from you, and I know I’m not alone when I say we will miss you deeply.

Today’s conference theme is “Energy and the Economy: The New Energy Landscape.” I’d like to share a few thoughts on energy and on the economy to begin our discussions. As always, these views are mine and not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).

Energy prices have been extremely volatile this year. The front-month futures price of West Texas Intermediate oil was up more than 52 percent at points during the year, though it has since retraced, while natural gas is up 20 percent since a year ago at the Henry Hub and 61 percent in continental Europe. Significant pressures and volatility in energy prices have stemmed from Russia’s war against Ukraine and Russia’s weaponization of energy exports. Although European nations have worked hard to build natural gas inventories and make plans to conserve energy, Europe still faces a difficult winter under even the best scenarios. This context provides daily reminders that energy plays a critical role in economic life and national security.

Energy is especially important here in the Tenth and Eleventh Federal Reserve Districts, which together produce almost half of the nation’s energy. Texas leads the nation in the production of oil, natural gas and wind power, and is second in utility-scale solar installations. Our region also leads the nation in refinery capacity and petrochemical production. In Texas, oil and gas production is a significant employer and makes up 11 percent of state GDP and almost half of exports. Adding in chemical products, the energy share of state exports rises to more than 60 percent.

The Dallas Fed is deeply committed to advancing the understanding of energy’s influence on the regional, national and global economies. We do so through our public outreach and research, including our quarterly energy survey of 200 oil and gas firms in Texas, southern New Mexico and northern Louisiana. We are grateful to those of you who participate in the survey.

We also bring people together, at events like today’s conference, our Energy Advisory Council meetings and other important gatherings, to work through the issues and identify constructive paths forward.

As Daron said, my years of experience in finance have given me a deep understanding of the criticality of energy markets and how events in these markets can reverberate through the broader financial system. But I am relatively new to the real side of the energy economy—namely, how energy is produced, distributed and consumed. So, although I’m fortunate to have an expert energy team at the Dallas Fed and have learned a great deal from visiting with some key energy leaders around the Eleventh District, I look forward to listening and learning more. I am particularly looking forward to today’s discussions and to connecting with all of you.

A deep understanding of the energy ecosystem is critical so the Federal Reserve can best accomplish core elements of our mission: setting monetary policy to promote maximum employment and stable prices, promoting the stability and efficiency of the financial system, and supporting community development. Energy sector developments affect economic output, employment, inflation, investment and credit markets. In turn, the Federal Reserve’s policies significantly affect the energy sector, through both changes in macroeconomic conditions and changes in financial conditions that influence investment.

Today’s economic conditions are complex, but they can be summarized in five words: Inflation is much too high.

Not only is inflation far above the FOMC’s 2 percent target, but with aggregate demand continuing to outstrip supply, inflation has repeatedly come in higher than forecasters expected. This morning’s CPI [Consumer Price Index] data were a welcome relief, but there is still a long way to go.

Price stability is foundational for a healthy labor market and economy over time.

• When inflation is high, it is difficult for families and companies to plan for the future and difficult for financial markets to allocate capital to the most productive uses.
• High inflation leaves many workers falling further and further behind, as their wages fail to keep pace with the cost of food, gas and other necessities.
• High inflation makes the business cycle more volatile, undermining the long and stable expansions that particularly benefit the most vulnerable in society.

In short, high inflation is a drag on our economy. The longer it continues, the worse the drag gets, the greater the risk that high inflation becomes entrenched and the greater the cost that must be paid to bring inflation down. The Federal Reserve has a dual mandate for monetary policy—maximum employment and price stability—but to achieve the maximum employment part of the mandate in a sustainable way, I believe monetary policy must focus now on promptly restoring price stability.

The FOMC has raised its target range for the federal funds rate by 3.75 percentage points since the start of the year, including with historically large 75-basis-point hikes at each of the past four meetings. Financial markets are pricing in the expectation of substantial further increases, and the FOMC is also removing monetary accommodation by reducing our asset holdings as described in the plans that the FOMC issued in May. As a result, broad financial conditions have tightened significantly. The 10-year Treasury yield has risen to more than 4 percent, compared with 1.51 percent at the start of the year, and option-adjusted yields have reached nearly 6 percent on investment-grade corporate debt and about 9 percent on high-yield debt. Thirty-year fixed mortgage rates have climbed to 7.32 percent from 3.27 percent. Importantly, real—or inflation-adjusted—interest rates, as measured by yields on Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, are significantly above zero across the yield curve.

These tighter financial conditions are beginning to bring demand back into balance with supply, particularly in interest-rate-sensitive sectors such as housing.

Sufficient cooling of the economy will eventually bring inflation back to our target. But this process is just getting started. The labor market remains very tight, and wages continue to grow considerably faster than the rate that would be consistent with 2 percent inflation.

You may have heard debate about whether tighter policy will imperil the financial system. It’s important to remember that higher interest rates should cause pressures. As you are likely well aware, some investments that had a positive net present value at last year’s interest rates do not make sense at today’s higher rates. Some projects will have to shut down. Financial markets, businesses and the economy will have to adjust after so many years of near-zero rates. Such adjustments are expected and appropriate to moderate demand and reduce inflation.

So far, I believe we are seeing a normal financial market response to tighter monetary policy. Although the cost of credit continues to rise and issuance continues to slow, credit markets remain open for most borrowers. And while liquidity conditions in key financial markets have been strained, those strains appear so far to result primarily from high economic uncertainty and volatility that raises the costs of market-making, rather than the other way around.

Although inflation poses hardships in the near term and damages the economy’s long-run strength, falling house prices, a cooling labor market and tighter financial conditions create hardships of their own.

I believe that the FOMC must do everything we can to restore the price stability that will support a healthy economy in the long run, but we should also try, if we can, to avoid incurring costs that are higher than necessary.

In my career in financial markets, I’ve learned that financial conditions usually evolve smoothly but sometimes deteriorate abruptly, with severe consequences for the economic well-being of households and businesses. As financial conditions become more restrictive, I am attentive to the potential for nonlinear and unexpected responses to further policy tightening.

While I believe it may soon be appropriate to slow the pace of rate increases so we can better assess how financial and economic conditions are evolving, I also believe a slower pace should not be taken to represent easier policy. I don’t see the decision about slowing the pace as being particularly closely related to the incoming data. The restrictiveness of policy comes from the entire policy strategy—not just how fast rates rise, but the level they reach, the time spent at that level, and, importantly, the factors that determine further increases or decreases. The FOMC can and should adjust other elements of policy to deliver appropriately tight conditions even as the pace slows. We must remain firmly committed to our 2 percent inflation goal.

I will look to a wide range of information to assess whether policy is sufficiently restrictive. For example, I’ll be watching the evolution of the labor market and economy, as well as thinking about real yields and about the accuracy of inflation forecasts, among other factors. Real interest rates remaining significantly above zero would contribute to the slowing of demand that I expect will reduce inflation. By contrast, inflation forecasts that consistently miss on the low side do not foster confidence that we understand the inflation process well enough to predict success.

That is a lot of words to explain a five-word economic situation. So let me sum up. Inflation is much too high. The FOMC must restore price stability—but must also proceed in a way that allows us to better assess how financial and economic conditions are evolving. That is how we can deliver the healthier economy, with stable prices and maximum employment, which is the Federal Reserve’s responsibility.

Thank you. I look forward to learning from all of you today, and especially to hearing President George’s keynote remarks over lunch.

Lorie K. Logan is president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

The views expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Federal Reserve System.

A collection of TED Talks (and more) on the topic of Energy.

Video playlists about Energy

The end of oil?

Talks about energy.

Could we build a miniature sun on Earth?

How does an air conditioner actually work?

The human cost of coal mining in China

3 mysteries of the universe — and a new force that might explain them

Can a simple brick be the next great battery?

Enough red tape — we need to say yes to clean energy

TED Explores: A New Climate Vision

How to harness abundant, clean energy for 10 billion people

Why you should ditch deadly fossil-fuel appliances

The powerful possibilities of recycling the world's batteries

Unions for climate action!

We actually have a shot at stopping the climate crisis

This country runs on 98 percent renewable electricity

Can AI help solve the climate crisis?

How to supercharge renewables and energize the world

Why rivals are working together to transform shipping

Exclusive articles about energy, why the war in ukraine is also a make-or-break moment for climate change, most us homes are energy vampires — here’s how we need to rethink housing from the ground up, how can we learn to use energy more wisely let’s look to nature as a guide.

Benefits of Renewable Energy Use

Published Jul 14, 2008 Updated Dec 20, 2017

Wind turbines and solar panels are an increasingly common sight. But why? What are the benefits of renewable energies—and how do they improve our health, environment, and economy?

This page explores the many positive impacts of clean energy, including the benefits of wind , solar , geothermal , hydroelectric , and biomass . For more information on their negative impacts—including effective solutions to avoid, minimize, or mitigate—see our page on  The Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Technologies .

Less global warming

Human activity is overloading our atmosphere with carbon dioxide and other  global warming emissions . These gases act like a blanket, trapping heat. The result is a web of  significant and harmful impacts , from stronger, more frequent storms, to drought, sea level rise, and extinction.

In the United States, about 29 percent of global warming emissions come from our electricity sector. Most of those emissions come from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas [ 1 ,  2 ].

What is CO 2 e?

Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, but other air pollutants—such as methane—also cause global warming. Different energy sources produce different amounts of these pollutants. To make comparisons easier, we use a carbon dioxide equivalent , or CO2e—the amount of carbon dioxide required to produce an equivalent amount of warming.

In contrast, most renewable energy sources produce little to no global warming emissions. Even when including “life cycle” emissions of clean energy (ie, the emissions from each stage of a technology’s life—manufacturing, installation, operation, decommissioning), the global warming emissions associated with renewable energy are minimal [ 3 ].

The comparison becomes clear when you look at the numbers. Burning natural gas for electricity releases between 0.6 and 2 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour (CO2E/kWh); coal emits between 1.4 and 3.6 pounds of CO2E/kWh.  Wind , on the other hand, is responsible for only 0.02 to 0.04 pounds of CO2E/kWh on a life-cycle basis;  solar  0.07 to 0.2;  geothermal  0.1 to 0.2; and  hydroelectric  between 0.1 and 0.5.

Renewable electricity generation from  biomass  can have a wide range of global warming emissions depending on the resource and whether or not it is sustainably sourced and harvested.

Increasing the supply of renewable energy would allow us to replace carbon-intensive energy sources and significantly reduce US global warming emissions.

For example, a 2009 UCS analysis found that a 25 percent by 2025 national renewable electricity standard would lower power plant CO2 emissions 277 million metric tons annually by 2025—the equivalent of the annual output from 70 typical (600 MW) new coal plants [ 4 ].

In addition, a ground-breaking study by the US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) explored the feasibility of generating 80 percent of the country’s electricity from renewable sources by 2050. They found that renewable energy could help reduce the electricity sector’s emissions by approximately 81 percent [ 5 ].

Improved public health

The air and water pollution emitted by coal and natural gas plants is linked with breathing problems, neurological damage, heart attacks, cancer, premature death, and a host of other serious problems. The pollution affects everyone: one Harvard University study estimated the life cycle costs and public health effects of coal to be an estimated $74.6 billion every year . That’s equivalent to 4.36 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced—about one-third of the average electricity rate for a typical US home [ 6 ].

Most of these negative health impacts come from air and water pollution that clean energy technologies simply don’t produce. Wind, solar, and hydroelectric systems generate electricity with no associated air pollution emissions. Geothermal and biomass systems emit some air pollutants, though total air emissions are generally much lower than those of coal- and natural gas-fired power plants.

In addition, wind and solar energy require essentially no water to operate and thus do not pollute water resources or strain supplies by competing with agriculture, drinking water, or other important water needs. In contrast, fossil fuels can have a  significant impact on water resources : both coal mining and natural gas drilling can pollute sources of drinking water, and all thermal power plants, including those powered by coal, gas, and oil, withdraw and consume water for cooling. 

Biomass and geothermal power plants, like coal- and natural gas-fired power plants, may require water for cooling. Hydroelectric power plants can disrupt river ecosystems both upstream and downstream from the dam. However, NREL's 80-percent-by-2050 renewable energy study, which included biomass and geothermal, found that total water consumption and withdrawal would decrease significantly in a future with high renewables [ 7 ].

Inexhaustible energy

Strong winds, sunny skies, abundant plant matter, heat from the earth, and fast-moving water can each provide a vast and constantly replenished supply of energy. A relatively small fraction of US electricity currently comes from these sources, but that could change: studies have repeatedly shown that renewable energy can provide a significant share of future electricity needs, even after accounting for potential constraints [ 9 ].

In fact, a major government-sponsored study found that clean energy could contribute somewhere between three and 80 times its 2013 levels, depending on assumptions [8]. And the previously mentioned NREL study found that renewable energy could comfortably provide up to 80 percent of US electricity by 2050.

Getting Excited About Energy: Expanding Renewables in the US

Jobs and other economic benefits.

Compared with fossil fuel technologies, which are typically mechanized and capital intensive, the renewable energy industry is more labor intensive. Solar panels need humans to install them; wind farms need technicians for maintenance.

This means that, on average, more jobs are created for each unit of electricity generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels.

Renewable energy already supports thousands of jobs in the United States. In 2016, the wind energy industry directly employed over 100,000 full-time-equivalent employees in a variety of capacities, including manufacturing, project development, construction and turbine installation, operations and maintenance, transportation and logistics, and financial, legal, and consulting services [ 10 ]. More than 500 factories in the United States manufacture parts for wind turbines, and wind power project installations in 2016 alone represented $13.0 billion in investments [ 11 ].

Other renewable energy technologies employ even more workers. In 2016, the solar industry employed more than 260,000 people, including jobs in solar installation, manufacturing, and sales, a 25% increase over 2015 [ 12 ]. The hydroelectric power industry employed approximately 66,000 people in 2017 [ 13 ]; the geothermal industry employed 5,800 people [ 14] .

Increased support for renewable energy could create even more jobs. The 2009 Union of Concerned Scientists study of a 25-percent-by-2025 renewable energy standard found that such a policy would create more than three times as many jobs (more than 200,000) as producing an equivalent amount of electricity from fossil fuels [ 15 ]. 

In contrast, the entire coal industry employed 160,000 people in 2016 [ 26 ].

In addition to the jobs directly created in the renewable energy industry, growth in clean energy can create positive economic “ripple” effects. For example, industries in the renewable energy supply chain will benefit, and unrelated local businesses will benefit from increased household and business incomes [ 16 ].

Local governments also benefit from clean energy, most often in the form of property and income taxes and other payments from renewable energy project owners. Owners of the land on which wind projects are built often receive lease payments ranging from $3,000 to $6,000 per megawatt of installed capacity, as well as payments for power line easements and road rights-of-way. They may also earn royalties based on the project’s annual revenues. Farmers and rural landowners can generate new sources of supplemental income by producing feedstocks for biomass power facilities.

UCS analysis found that a 25-by-2025 national renewable electricity standard would stimulate $263.4 billion in new capital investment for renewable energy technologies, $13.5 billion in new landowner income from? biomass production and/or wind land lease payments, and $11.5 billion in new property tax revenue for local communities [ 17 ].

Stable energy prices

Renewable energy is providing affordable electricity across the country right now, and can help stabilize energy prices in the future.

Although renewable facilities require upfront investments to build, they can then operate at very low cost (for most clean energy technologies, the “fuel” is free). As a result, renewable energy prices can be very stable over time.

Moreover, the costs of renewable energy technologies have declined steadily, and are projected to drop even more. For example, the average price to install solar dropped more than 70 percent between 2010 and 2017 [ 20 ]. The cost of generating electricity from wind dropped 66 percent between 2009 and 2016 [ 21 ]. Costs will likely decline even further as markets mature and companies increasingly take advantage of economies of scale.

In contrast, fossil fuel prices can vary dramatically and are prone to substantial price swings. For example, there was a rapid increase in US coal prices due to rising global demand before 2008, then a rapid fall after 2008 when global demands declined [ 23 ]. Likewise, natural gas prices have fluctuated greatly since 2000 [ 25 ].

Using more renewable energy can lower the prices of and demand for natural gas and coal by increasing competition and diversifying our energy supplies. And an increased reliance on renewable energy can help protect consumers when fossil fuel prices spike. 

Barriers to Renewable Energy Technologies

Reliability and resilience.

 Wind and solar are less prone to large-scale failure because they are distributed and modular. Distributed systems are spread out over a large geographical area, so a severe weather event in one location will not cut off power to an entire region. Modular systems are composed of numerous individual wind turbines or solar arrays. Even if some of the equipment in the system is damaged, the rest can typically continue to operate.

For example, Hurricane Sandy damaged fossil fuel-dominated electric generation and distribution systems in New York and New Jersey and left millions of people without power. In contrast, renewable energy projects in the Northeast weathered Hurricane Sandy with minimal damage or disruption [ 25 ]. 

Water scarcity is another risk for non-renewable power plants. Coal, nuclear, and many natural gas plants depend on having sufficient water for cooling, which means that severe droughts and heat waves can put electricity generation at risk. Wind and solar photovoltaic systems do not require water to generate electricity and can operate reliably in conditions that may otherwise require closing a fossil fuel-powered plant. (For more information, see  How it Works: Water for Electricity .)  

The risk of disruptive events will also increase in the future as droughts, heat waves, more intense storms, and increasingly severe wildfires become more frequent due to global warming—increasing the need for resilient, clean technologies.

References:

[1] Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015.

[2] Energy Information Agency (EIA). 2017.  How much of the U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are associated with electricity generation?

[3] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2011.  IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation . Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1075 pp. (Chapter 9).

[4] Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 2009.  Clean Power Green Jobs .

[5] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2012.  Renewable Electricity Futures Study . Volume 1, pg. 210.

[6] Epstein, P.R.,J. J. Buonocore, K. Eckerle, M. Hendryx, B. M. Stout III, R. Heinberg, R. W. Clapp, B. May, N. L. Reinhart, M. M. Ahern, S. K. Doshi, and L. Glustrom. 2011. Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal in “Ecological Economics Reviews.” Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1219: 73–98.

[7]  Renewable Electricity Futures Study . 2012.

[8] NREL. 2016.  Estimating Renewable Energy Economic Potential in the United States: Methodology and Initial Results .

[9]  Renewable Electricity Futures Study . 2012.

IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation . Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2011.

UCS. 2009.  Climate 2030: A national blueprint for a clean energy economy .

[10] American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2017. AWEA U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report: Year Ending 2016. Washington, D.C.: American Wind Energy Association.

 [11] Wiser, Ryan, and Mark Bolinger. 2017. 2016 Wind Technologies Market Report. U.S. Department of Energy.

[12] The Solar Foundation. 2017. National Solar Jobs Census 2016.

[13] Navigant Consulting. 2009.  Job Creation Opportunities in Hydropower .

[14] Geothermal Energy Association. 2010.  Green Jobs through Geothermal Energy .

[15] UCS. 2009.  Clean Power Green Jobs .

[16] Environmental Protection Agency. 2010.  Assessing the Multiple Benefits of Clean Energy: A Resource for States . Chapter 5.

[17] UCS. 2009.  Clean Power Green Jobs .

[18] Deyette, J., and B. Freese. 2010.  Burning coal, burning cash: Ranking the states that import the most coal . Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.

[20] SEIA. 2017. Solar Market Insight Report 2017 Q2.

[21] AWEA. 2017. AWEA U.S. Wind Industry Annual Market Report: Year Ending 2016. Washington, D.C.: American Wind Energy Association.

[22] UCS. 2009.  Clean Power Green Jobs .

[23] UCS. 2011.  A Risky Proposition: The financial hazards of new investments in coal plants .

[24] EIA. 2013.  U.S. Natural Gas Wellhead Price .

[25] Unger, David J. 2012.  Are renewables stormproof? Hurricane Sandy tests solar, wind . The Christian Science Monitor. November 19.

[26] Department of Energy. 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report

Related resources

The Electric Utility Toolkit

Siting for a Cleaner, More Equitable Grid in Massachusetts

Barriers and Solutions to Building Clean Energy in California

Accelerating Clean Energy Ambition

We use cookies to improve your experience. By continuing, you accept our use of cookies. Learn more .

Support our work

Other ways to give.

• Honor & memory
• Become a member
• Give monthly
• Make a planned gift
• Gift memberships

Your donation at work

• Future Energy Systems Center
• Studies and reports
• Funding opportunities
• Carbon Management
• Electric Power
• Energy storage
• Low-carbon Fuels
• Transportation
• Undergraduate education
• Graduate & postdoctoral
• Online education
• Education research
• Current members
• Energy Futures
• In the media
• Affiliations

Five Energy Topics That Will Be Key To The World’s Future

Mit energy conference 2015 brings together key energy innovators.

Leading CEOs, academics and entrepreneurs in global energy converged on MIT this past weekend for the tenth annual MIT Energy Conference, which explored “Global Energy Shifts.” Panels delved into four key areas: power and renewables, fossil fuels, global collaboration, and sustainable development.

Key speakers over the two day gathering included Thomas Siebel, Founder and CEO of C3 Energy, Bill Colton, Vice President of Corporate Strategic Planning at ExxonMobil Corporation, Ahmad Chatila, President and CEO of SunEdison, Dirk Smit, Chief Scientist at Shell Global, David Danielson, Assistant Secretary of Energy at the DOE, and William A. Von Hoene, Jr., Chief Strategic Officer at Exelon Group, among others.

MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) director Robert Armstrong delivered opening remarks to a packed auditorium. Armstrong lauded the conference’s ability to consistently touch upon the most pressing energy issues of our time, and to foster an atmosphere conducive to solving challenges in a creative and efficient way.

“There are five topics in particular that are going to be of importance in the energy world in the near future,” said Armstrong. “Solar is the first.”

“Though solar is admittedly difficult, because it’s a resource that’s not concentrated in one place, it also is an easily and cheaply manufactured technology, which will help widen its reach.”

Armstrong next pointed to both energy storage and then the grid. “Energy storage is essential for large scale incorporation of renewables on the grid. The grid’s size, resiliency, reliability, security and adaptability need to be taken into account if the full potential of emerging energy technologies is going to be achieved.”

MITEI’s director also urged his audience to pay attention to emerging technologies in two areas: nuclear energy and carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS.

“In a truly balanced energy ecosystem, nuclear needs to be part of the solution.  Leaps forward in affordable and predictable nuclear will change our energy landscape for the better.”

Armstrong has similarly high hopes for carbon capture and sequestration. Citing the projection that global energy demand will double by midcentury, he observed that fossil fuels will have to be a part of that equation.

“The need to remove carbon from the atmosphere is very real, and CCS technology will play a critical role in solving this problem.”

Armstrong’s vision for the MIT Energy Initiative within the energy landscape is clear –  “The MIT Energy Initiative has at its heart – just as the MIT Energy Club does – a goal of bringing all the talents of MIT together to bear on these very real challenges.”

The rest of the conference’s panels kept this solution-oriented spirit alive.

At an afternoon panel on fossil fuels called “Unconventional Resources: Present to Future, U.S. to Global,” Christopher Knittel , the William Barton Rogers Professor of Energy Economics at MIT Sloan and a MITEI-affiliated researcher, led a group of experts in a discussion of the future of shale gas drilling.

Another panel approached the issue of how to promote a different kind of unconventional resource: renewable energy. In the session “Securing the Future of Clean Energy Through a Stronger Transmission Backbone,” panelists from across the clean energy sector approached the issue of how to better integrate renewables into the grid.

In all, the sold-out conference featured over fifty speakers participating in over fifteen panels and keynotes tackling key global energy issues.

For more information about the day, visit the MIT Energy Conference’s website .

Press inquiries: [email protected]

First-Ever Global Renewables Summit Announced to Drive Action to Triple Renewable Power by 2030 and Advance Global Energy Transition during 79th UN General Assembly

Summit will bring together leaders from industry, government, intergovernmental organisations, ngos, philanthropy, and cop presidencies in new york to help embolden action on the global tripling renewables target..

Brussels, Belgium / New York, United States of America, 26 June 2024 – Today, the Global Renewables Alliance (GRA) and Bloomberg Philanthropies, in partnership with the governments of Barbados and Kenya, the European Commission, the COP28 and COP29 Presidencies, the International Energy Agency (IEA), the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL), and the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) at Columbia University – SIPA announced the Global Renewables Summit , the first-ever high-level public-private summit to discuss the progress, opportunities, and challenges of tripling renewable energy globally by 2030. The Summit will be held in New York from 23-25 September on the margins of the 79th UN General Assembly High-Level Week.

Following the first Global Stocktake adopted at COP28, and captured in the historic UAE Consensus, which calls for tripling the world’s renewable energy capacity and doubling energy efficiency gains by 2030 and ensuring deep, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in line with a pathway to limit global warming to 1.5 ° C in a nationally determined manner, the Summit will serve as a platform to advance key areas of action to scale-up renewable deployment this decade, especially in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs). The organising partners represent a unique coalition of governments, private sector, philanthropy, international organisations, and academia and demonstrates the collective momentum and drive to accelerate the pace and scale of the transition to renewable energy.

“The historic global renewable target was not plucked from the air. IRENA’s World Energy Transitions Outlook projected the need to triple renewable power capacity to over 11,000 GW globally by 2030 for a 1.5 ° C aligned pathway. Now, we must build on the success of COP28 and mobilize action. As global custodian, IRENA will monitor progress and provide recommendations across energy transition priorities and this first-ever Renewables Summit is an important milestone to maintain momentum and drive implementation towards 2030,” said Francesco La Camera, Director-General of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) .

“Transitioning from coal and other fossil fuels to renewable energy is key to solving the climate crisis,” said Antha Williams, who leads the environment program at Bloomberg Philanthropies .

“The world must triple renewable energy by 2030. The deployment and investment levels in emerging and developing economies remains far below the scale and pace needed. Rapidly scaling up deployment in these countries is crucial to curb emissions and protect people’s health and our economies from the worst effects of climate change. Bloomberg Philanthropies look forward to bringing together world leaders and experts to exchange insights and mobilise action to help achieve a clean energy future for all,” she added.

“At COP28, a coalition of private sector, civil society, governments, and multilateral organisations collectively secured a global target to triple renewables by 2030. Now, it’s time for action. Renewable technologies are mature and competitive, and the industries are ready to deliver, but the right policy frameworks and implementation are now urgently required. We are honoured to co-host this unique public-private summit with some of the leading organisations in the world to ignite a worldwide race to the top, accelerating action on finance, permits, grids, and supply chains to unleash the full potential of renewables," said Bruce Douglas, CEO of the Global Renewables Alliance .

The Summit will feature an opening segment with participation of governments followed by high-level multi-stakeholder roundtables on key topics including access to finance, supply chains, permitting and grid infrastructure. The Summit will provide a space for governments to deliberate on the target of increasing global energy storage six-fold by 2030 and to consider including sectoral renewable energy targets in their Nationally Determined Contributions due in 2025. The organising partners will also present announcements and reports in support of the tripling renewables target.

“Kenya is delighted to co-host the inaugural Global Renewables Summit alongside other distinguished world leaders during the UN General Assembly. This Summit marks a pivotal moment to showcase progress and galvanize partners in a renewed effort to achieve our climate goals. Notably, the goal set in the Nairobi Declaration of increasing Africa’s renewable generation capacity from 56 GW in 2022 to at least 300 GW by 2030 – a fivefold increase. This ambitious target will enable Kenya and Africa to address energy poverty, herald a new wave of green industrial investment, and strengthen the global supply of cost-effective clean energy,” said Ali Mohamed, Special Envoy for Climate Change, Executive Office of the President, Kenya .

“I have the privilege of sitting in a Cabinet led by a global climate champion in the person of Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley. She has thrown out a challenge to the world and to all of us that says that now is the time to act. As we transition to renewable sources of energy, we must act on ensuring that small island developing states on the front line of the climate crisis, and with limited fiscal space are fully integrated into global energy supply chains, have access to technology, access to affordable financing, and are in many ways able to craft a new global compact that comprises, Governments, partners like the Global Renewables Alliance representing Industry and the Financing Institutions on special and differential treatment for developing nations to meet their energy transition goals,” said Senator the Hon. Lisa Cummins, Minister of Energy and Business, Government of Barbados .

“Through the historic UAE Consensus and Presidential Action Agenda, COP28 ushered in a new era of climate action for this critical decade. Encapsulated in the UAE Consensus are time-bound targets to triple global renewable energy capacity and double energy efficiency by 2030 to keep the 1.5 ° C target within reach. Platforms such as The Global Renewables Summit are vital to fostering collaboration and creating opportunities to redefine our future towards sustainable socio-economic development that leaves no one behind,” said Adnan Amin, Chief Executive Officer of COP28 .

“By investing in wind, solar, and other renewable technologies, countries can diversify their energy portfolio and pave the way for a greener, more resilient future. In this context, the summit can serve as an additional platform to deliberate on preparations for COP29 Presidency-led initiatives on green energy pledges. These efforts will contribute to previously announced green energy initiatives,” said Yalchin Rafiyev, Chief Negotiator of COP29 .

“Achieving SDG 7 by 2030 will only be possible by deploying a combination of grid, mini-grid, and stand-alone off-grid solutions that leverage the faster deployment of distributed renewables to meet current levels of demand quickly. The global goal to triple renewable energy capacity, which was agreed upon by all countries at COP28, is a timely commitment that will go a long way in achieving our 2030 goals. I welcome the Global Renewables Summit as it will be an important moment to accelerate action on this vital global renewables target,” said Damilola Ogunbiyi, CEO and Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General (UN SRSG) for Sustainable Energy for All, and Co-Chair of UN-Energy .

Find more information about the Global Renewables Summit GRS2024 here .

Electrification with renewables: Enhancing healthcare delivery in São Tomé and Príncipe

Tracking sdg 7: the energy progress report 2024, climate action and the energy transition: irena member survey on nationally determined contributions, investment opportunities for utility-scale solar and wind areas: el salvador, tripling renewable power by 2030: the role of the g7 in turning targets into action, related content.

Africa50 Joins IRENA’s ETAF Platform to Accelerate Renewable Energy Deployment in Africa

The Role of Sustainable Bioenergy in Supporting Climate and Development Goals

IRENA Council Convenes Amidst UN Secretary General’s Call for Urgent Climate Action

Progress on Basic Energy Access Reverses for First Time in a Decade

IRENA Supports Ukraine in Rebuilding Damaged Energy Infrastructure

• The exponential growth of solar power will change the world

An energy-rich future is within reach

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

I t is 70 years since AT&T ’s Bell Labs unveiled a new technology for turning sunlight into power. The phone company hoped it could replace the batteries that run equipment in out-of-the-way places. It also realised that powering devices with light alone showed how science could make the future seem wonderful; hence a press event at which sunshine kept a toy Ferris wheel spinning round and round.

Today solar power is long past the toy phase. Panels now occupy an area around half that of Wales, and this year they will provide the world with about 6% of its electricity—which is almost three times as much electrical energy as America consumed back in 1954. Yet this historic growth is only the second-most-remarkable thing about the rise of solar power. The most remarkable is that it is nowhere near over.

To call solar power’s rise exponential is not hyperbole, but a statement of fact. Installed solar capacity doubles roughly every three years, and so grows ten-fold each decade. Such sustained growth is seldom seen in anything that matters. That makes it hard for people to get their heads round what is going on. When it was a tenth of its current size ten years ago, solar power was still seen as marginal even by experts who knew how fast it had grown. The next ten-fold increase will be equivalent to multiplying the world’s entire fleet of nuclear reactors by eight in less than the time it typically takes to build just a single one of them.

Solar cells will in all likelihood be the single biggest source of electrical power on the planet by the mid 2030s. By the 2040s they may be the largest source not just of electricity but of all energy. On current trends, the all-in cost of the electricity they produce promises to be less than half as expensive as the cheapest available today. This will not stop climate change, but could slow it a lot faster. Much of the world—including Africa , where 600m people still cannot light their homes—will begin to feel energy-rich. That feeling will be a new and transformational one for humankind.

To grasp that this is not some environmentalist fever dream, consider solar economics. As the cumulative production of a manufactured good increases, costs go down. As costs go down, demand goes up. As demand goes up, production increases—and costs go down further. This cannot go on for ever; production, demand or both always become constrained. In earlier energy transitions—from wood to coal, coal to oil or oil to gas—the efficiency of extraction grew, but it was eventually offset by the cost of finding ever more fuel.

As our essay this week explains, solar power faces no such constraint. The resources needed to produce solar cells and plant them on solar farms are silicon-rich sand, sunny places and human ingenuity, all three of which are abundant. Making cells also takes energy, but solar power is fast making that abundant, too. As for demand, it is both huge and elastic—if you make electricity cheaper, people will find uses for it. The result is that, in contrast to earlier energy sources, solar power has routinely become cheaper and will continue to do so.

Other constraints do exist. Given people’s proclivity for living outside daylight hours, solar power needs to be complemented with storage and supplemented by other technologies. Heavy industry and aviation and freight have been hard to electrify. Fortunately, these problems may be solved as batteries and fuels created by electrolysis gradually become cheaper.

Another worry is that the vast majority of the world’s solar panels, and almost all the purified silicon from which they are made, come from China. Its solar industry is highly competitive, heavily subsidised and is outstripping current demand—quite an achievement given all the solar capacity China is installing within its own borders. This means that Chinese capacity is big enough to keep the expansion going for years to come, even if some of the companies involved go to the wall and some investment dries up.

In the long run, a world in which more energy is generated without the oil and gas that come from unstable or unfriendly parts of the world will be more dependable. Still, although the Chinese Communist Party cannot rig the price of sunlight as OPEC tries to rig that of oil, the fact that a vital industry resides in a single hostile country is worrying.

It is a concern that America feels keenly, which is why it has put tariffs on Chinese solar equipment. However, because almost all the demand for solar panels still lies in the future, the rest of the world will have plenty of scope to get into the market. America’s adoption of solar energy could be frustrated by a pro-fossil-fuel Trump presidency, but only temporarily and painfully. It could equally be enhanced if America released pent up demand, by making it easier to install panels on homes and to join the grid—the country has a terawatt of new solar capacity waiting to be connected. Carbon prices would help, just as they did in the switch from coal to gas in the European Union.

The aim should be for the virtuous circle of solar-power production to turn as fast as possible. That is because it offers the prize of cheaper energy. The benefits start with a boost to productivity. Anything that people use energy for today will cost less—and that includes pretty much everything. Then come the things cheap energy will make possible. People who could never afford to will start lighting their houses or driving a car. Cheap energy can purify water, and even desalinate it. It can drive the hungry machinery of artificial intelligence. It can make billions of homes and offices more bearable in summers that will, for decades to come, be getting hotter.

But it is the things that nobody has yet thought of that will be most consequential. In its radical abundance, cheaper energy will free the imagination, setting tiny Ferris wheels of the mind spinning with excitement and new possibilities.

This week marks the summer solstice in the northern hemisphere. The Sun rising to its highest point in the sky will in decades to come shine down on a world where nobody need go without the blessings of electricity and where the access to energy invigorates all those it touches. ■

For subscribers only: to see how we design each week’s cover, sign up to our weekly  Cover Story newsletter .

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline “The solar age”

Leaders June 22nd 2024

• AI will transform the character of warfare
• Emmanuel Macron’s project of reform is at risk
• How to tax billionaires—and how not to
• Javier Milei’s next move could make his presidency—or break it
• India should liberate its cities and create more states

From the June 22nd 2024 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

More from Leaders

What to make of Joe Biden’s plans for a second term

His domestic agenda is underwhelming, unrealistic and better than the alternative

A pivotal moment for China’s Communist Party

Will Xi Jinping keep ignoring good advice at the party’s third plenum?

LLMs now write lots of science. Good

Easier and more lucid writing will make science faster and better

Macron has done well by France. But he risks throwing it all away

After the election, populists of the right and left could hobble a centrist president

Keir Starmer should be Britain’s next prime minister

Why Labour must form the next government

Simple steps to stop people dying from heatwaves

As much of the world roasts, don’t despair

Top 60 Great Ideas on Renewable and Alternative Energy Topics

[Post information was updated in April, 2024]

Environmentalists from all around the world sound the alarm about the state of our planet. Scientists have predicted that if humanity does not change the way of using energy sources, our planet’s resources will run out in less than forty years.

Therefore, people have been changing their minds about using fossil fuels. In 2019, especially compared to previous years, the amount of young activists has increased. They are paying attention to global society and how to reduce the usage of resources with emissions that are harmful to our planet and our lives.

The United States gets 81% of its total energy from fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas. People depend on those fuels to heat homes, drive cars, run the power industry and manufacturing, and provide electricity. Students and teachers of many faculties are researching this problem in theory and helping scientists come up with practical solutions. Papers with renewable energy research topics are useful more than ever to discuss and spread knowledge on this catastrophe.

Hopefully, these ideas will help in the future to generate highly qualified research papers for your college, otherwise you can get benefits of our essay writing app . The numbers and facts show that more young brains are tuned into the awareness that humanity faces one of the biggest crises in history.

Renewable energy research topics

These topics on renewable energy for the research paper can give you ideas for excellent papers in college.

• Renewable energy sources and the geological business plan.
• Should the European Union increase the usage of renewable energy as a mainstay?
• Renewable energy with the usage of hydrogen fuel technology.
• How can renewable energy help the natural environment of developing countries?
• Renewable energy is a necessary method in Japan: the world’s fifth carbon emitter.
• Methods of how renewable energy as the primary source of energy will affect society’s approach to a better standard of living.
• The use of renewable energy must be harnessed to reverse the negative impacts of climate change caused by global warming.
• Could the use of renewable energy sources realistically be the answer to global warming for Australia?
• Why landfills and recycling spaces are essential renewable energy sources.
• How can the negative impact on climate change be reduced by using renewable sources of energy?
• Why can’t we replace using fossil fuels with renewable energy?
• Energy savings programs of developed countries as an example to follow.
• Renewable energy development strategy.
• Businesses and energy communities that are using renewable energy sources.
• Renewable sources vs. fossil fuels energy.
• Sustainability and renewable energy.
• Benefits of renewable energy in 2020.
• New technologies for using renewable energy sources invented in 2019.
• How renewable energy affects our planet’s future.
• Usage of biomass as a source of renewable energy.
• The limitations of fossil fuels: the importance of renewable energy and its economic benefits.
• Power extraction methods from flow-structure interactions.
• The pros and cons of renewable energy usage in the EU.
• Why the US should use renewable energy.
• The real price of power: an environmental impact review of renewable energy use and mitigation strategies.
• Smart grid technology as a renewable energy source.
• The laws the government should enforce on citizens regarding environmental issues, such as renewable energy.
• The advantages of biofuels being renewable energy.
• Do renewable energy sources propose green methods of use?
• Hydropower is the best from available renewable energy sources.

Alternative energy topics

• Which changes in consumer preferences toward alternative energy sources have contributed to lower oil prices?
• Why the use of alternative energy is beneficial and economical.
• Are alternative energy sources like solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal more practical than fossil fuels?
• Why non-renewable energy is less valuable than alternative energy.
• Why should the government increase funding for the development of alternative energy sources?
• A classification of the alternative energy sources.
• Methods of alternative energy use.
• Why is the use of alternative energy beneficial and economical for modern businesses?
• Should the government implement taxes for the purchase of hybrid or alternative energy vehicles?
• Does the government justify alternative energy sources that are useful for the climate?
• Hydroelectric power as a popular alternative energy source in Australia.
• Alternative energy as a constructive and viable energy production method in comparison to destructive nuclear energy.
• The chances of alternative energy effectively replacing fossil fuels.
• Wind farms and their potential to provide alternative energy for commercial use.
• Qatar explores alternative energy sources to ensure Brunei’s economic prosperity in the light of its depleting oil and gas reserves.
• An alternative energy program that could be the answer to the nation’s energy problems.
• The economic arguments for and against bio fuels as a method of alternative energy.
• Alternative energy is no longer an option but a vital solution for humanity.
• Solar energy is a kind of alternative energy that is the best solution for the domestic needs of big cities and countrysides.
• Using wind energy as an alternative source for providing electricity.
• How does alternative energy as the primary source of energy affect society’s sustainability?
• Hydroelectric power: how is the public reacting to this new form of alternative energy?
• The role of alternative energy projects in solving South Africa’s energy crisis.
• How do alternative energy methods affect the ecosystem in Europe?
• What technical barriers are holding the alternative energy industry back from more considerable expansion and adoption in the consumer and commercial sectors?
• The reasons for alternative energy technologies taking off and costs dropping each year.
• Geothermal energy: the methods of implementing this technology as a compelling option of alternative energy.
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of alternative energy methods?
• Is reliance on alternative energy a viable long-term strategy, or does the abundance and profitability of fossil fuels give no real incentives to switch to cleaner forms of energy?
• Pros and cons of moving the global economy from a fossil fuel base to alternative energy.

47 helpful resources on renewable and alternative energy topics

Writing a paper is a complicated process, especially in the ecological discipline. You may find out more interesting facts about alternative energy on our website, or use essay writing app for help. We also propose for students a list of more powerful tools for further inspiration.

• Ajayi, OO. (2009). “Assessment of utilization of wind energy resources in Nigeria.”
• Alnatheer, O. (2005). “The potential contribution of renewable energy to electricity supply in Saudi Arabia.”
• Anderson, D. (1997). Renewable energy technology and policy for development.”
• Bird, L., Bolinger, M., Gagliano, T., Wiser, R., Brown, M. and Parsons, B. (2005). “Policies and market factors driving wind power development in the United States.”
• Birgisson, G. and Petersen, E. (2006). “Renewable energy development incentives: Strengths, weaknesses, and the interplay.”
• Burns, J.R. (1982). “Solar energy and the national energy dilemma: A model for policy evaluation.”
• Cantono, S. and Silverberg, G. (2009). “A percolation model of eco-innovation diffusion: The relationship between diffusion, learning economies and subsidies.”
• Carley, S. (2009). “State renewable energy electricity policies: An empirical evaluation of effectiveness.”
• Charles, M.B., Ryan, R., Ryan, N. and Oloruntoba, R. (2007). “Public policy and biofuels: The way forward?”
• Christiansen, A.C. (2002). “New renewable energy developments and the climate change issue: A case study of Norwegian politics.”
• Cowan, K.R. and Daim, T. (2009). “Comparative technological road-mapping for renewable energy.”
• Dinica, V. (2008). “Initiating a sustained diffusion of wind power: The role of public-private partnerships in Spain.”
• Dritschilo, W., Monroy, M., Nash, E., Schuyler, B., Wallerstein, B.R., Vita, J.D., and Perrine, R.L. (1983). “Energy vs. food resource ratios for alternative energy technologies.”
• Elliott, D. (2000). “Renewable energy and sustainable futures.”
• Fouquet, D. and Johansson, T.B. (2008). “European renewable energy policy at crossroads – focus on electricity support mechanisms.”
• Gan, P.Y. and Li, Z. (2008). “An econometric study on long-term energy outlook and the implications of renewable energy utilization in Malaysia.”
• Harmon, R.R. and Cowan, K.R. (2009). “A multiple perspectives view of the market case for green energy.”
• Hope, C.W. (1982). “Assessing renewable energy research and development.”
• Huang, A.Y. and Liu, R. (2008). “Learning for supplying as a motive to be the early adopter of new energy technology: A study on the adoption of stationary fuel cells.”
• Huang, M., Alavalapati, J.R.R., Carter, D.R. and Langholtz, M.H. (2007). “Is the choice of renewable portfolio standards random?”
• International Energy Agency (IEA) (2006). Key World Energy Statistics 2006, http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2006/key2006.pdf.
• Inoue, Y. and Miyazaki, K. (2008). “Technological innovation and diffusion of wind power in Japan.”
• Jacobsson, S. and Johnson, A. (2000). “The diffusion of renewable energy technology: An analytical framework and key issues for research.”
• Kajikawa, Y. and Takeda, Y. (2008). “Structure of research on biomass and biofuels: A citation-based approach.”
• Kajikawa, Y., Yoshikawa, J., Takeda Y. and Matsushima, K. (2008). “Tracking emerging technologies in energy research: Toward a roadmap for sustainable energy.”
• Karger, C.R. and Bongartz, R. (2008). “External determinants for the adoption of stationary fuel cells – infrastructure and policy issues.”
• Kobos, P.H., Erickson, J.D. and Drennen, T.E. (2006). “Technological learning and renewable energy costs: Implications for US renewable energy policy.”
• Kydes, A.S. (2007). “Impacts of a renewable portfolio generation standard on US energy markets.”
• Linston, H.A. (1999). Decision making for technology executives: Using multiple perspective to improve performance. Boston: Artech House.
• Loiter, JM and Norberg-Bohm, V. (1999). “Technology policy and renewable energy: Public roles in the development of new energy technologies.”
• Lund, H. (2007). “Renewable energy strategies for sustainable development.”
• Mallett, A. (2007). “Social acceptance of renewable energy innovations: The role of technology cooperation in urban Mexico.”
• Neij, L. (1997). “Use of experience curves to analyze the prospects for diffusion and adoption of renewable energy technology.”
• Norberg-Bohm, V. (2000). “Creating incentives for environmentally enhancing technological change: Lessons from 30 years of US energy technology policy.”
• Owen, A.D. (2006) “Renewable energy: Externality costs as market barriers.”
• Patlitzianas, K.D., Doukas, H. and Psarras, J. (2006). “Enhancing renewable energy in the Arab states of the Gulf: Constraints and efforts.”
• Podobnik, B. (1999). “Toward a sustainable energy regime: A long-wave interpretation of global energy shifts.”
• Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Ryan, C.J. (1980). “The choices in the next energy and social revolution.”
• Sawyer, S.W. (1982). “Leaders in change: Solar energy owners and the implications for future adoption rates.”
• Sherrington, C., Bartley, J. and Moran, D. (2008). “Farm-level constraints on the domestic supply of perennial energy crops in the UK.”
• Shinnar, R. and Citro, F. (2008). “Decarbonization: Achieving near-total energy independence and near-total elimination of greenhouse emissions with available technologies.”
• Sims, REH (2004). “Renewable energy: A response to climate change.”
• Stephens, J.C., Wilson, E.J. and Peterson, T.R. (2008). “Socio-political evaluation of energy deployment (SPEED): An integrated research framework analyzing energy technology deployment.”
• Tsoutsos, T.D. and Stamboulis, Y.A. (2005). “The sustainable diffusion of renewable energy technologies as an example of an innovation-focused policy.”
• Walker, G. (1995). “Renewable energy and the public.”
• Zoellner, J., Schweizer-Ries, P. and Wemheuer, C. (2008). “Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany.”

Renewable and alternative energy essay writing help

Within a few years of engaging with ecological methods of producing energy, activists reached the ears of global communities from different fields. By cooperating, specialists are inventing more and more new options for using solar, biomass, wind, geothermal, and other kinds of energy supplies. We propose you to use the topics and sources in this article to use for your in-depth research and creative writing of your academic paper.

We hope you choose the best topic suitable for your essay or order an essay sample on this discipline at EssayShark.com. In case you don’t have an idea of where to start, our specialists will give you a helping hand – just request write my essay help from us!

Photo by Oimheidi from Pixabay

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

What our customers say

Our website uses secure cookies. More details

Get professional help from best writers right from your phone

Grab our 3 e-books bundle for $27 FREE

• Renewable Energy

What Is Renewable Energy?

Renewable energy comes from unlimited, naturally replenished resources, such as the sun, tides, and wind. Renewable energy can be used for electricity generation, space and water heating and cooling, and transportation.

Non-renewable energy, in contrast, comes from finite sources, such as coal, natural gas, and oil.

How Does Renewable Energy Work?

Renewable energy sources, such as biomass, the heat in the earth’s crust, sunlight, water, and wind, are natural resources that can be converted into several types of clean, usable energy:

Bioenergy Geothermal Energy Hydrogen and Other Renewable Fuels Hydropower Marine Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy

Learn the truth about clean energy.

Benefits of Renewable Energy

Renewable energy offers numerous economic, environmental, and social advantages. These include:

• Reduced carbon emissions and air pollution from energy production
• Enhanced reliability , security, and resilience of the power grid
• Job creation through the increased production and manufacturing of renewable energy technologies
• Increased U.S. energy independence
• Lower energy costs
• Expanded energy access for remote, coastal, or isolated communities.

Learn more about the advantages of wind energy , solar energy , bioenergy , geothermal energy , hydropower , and marine energy , and how the U.S. Department of Energy is working to modernize the power grid and increase renewable energy production.

Renewable Energy in the United States

Renewable energy generates over 20% of all U.S. electricity , and that percentage continues to grow. The following graphic breaks down the shares of total electricity production in 2022 among the types of renewable power: 

In 2022, annual U.S. renewable energy generation surpassed coal for the first time in history. By 2025, domestic solar energy generation is expected to increase by 75%, and wind by 11%. 

The United States is a resource-rich country with enough renewable energy resources to generate more than 100 times the amount of electricity Americans use each year.  Learn more about renewable energy potential in the United States.

Subscribe to stay up to date on the latest clean energy news from EERE.

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) has three core divisions: Renewable Energy, Sustainable Transportation and Fuels, and Buildings and Industry. The Renewable Energy pillar comprises four technology offices:

Every American can advocate for renewable energy by becoming a Clean Energy Champion. Both small and large actions make a difference. Join the movement .

Advancing Renewable Energy in the United States

EERE offers funding for renewable energy research and development, as well as programs that support the siting of renewable energy , connection of renewable energy to the grid , and community-led energy projects . Find open funding opportunities and learn how to apply for funding .

The U.S. Department of Energy's 17 national laboratories conduct research and help bring renewable energy technologies to market. 

Renewable Energy at Home

Homeowners and renters can use clean energy at home by buying green power, installing renewable energy systems to generate electricity, or using renewable resources for water and space heating and cooling.

Before installing a renewable energy system, it's important to reduce your energy consumption and improve your home’s energy efficiency .

Visit Energy Saver to learn more about the use of renewable energy at home.

You may be eligible for federal and state tax credits if you install a renewable energy system in your home. Visit ENERGY STAR to learn about federal renewable energy tax credits for homeowners. For information on state incentives, visit the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency .

Other Ways EERE Champions Clean Energy

Find clean energy jobs.

EERE is dedicated to building a clean energy economy, which means millions of new jobs in construction, manufacturing, and many other industries. Learn more about job opportunities in renewable energy:

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts
• Currently reading: Energy poverty and funding hurdles hold back Africa’s green transition
• Clean tech investment set to hit $2tn in 2024
• Big Oil under pressure to recalibrate green transition goals
• 12 start-ups tackling the energy transition
• Strategic interests galvanise Gulf’s renewables spending
• Coal focus damps hopes of China’s climate ambition

Energy poverty and funding hurdles hold back Africa’s green transition

• Energy poverty and funding hurdles hold back Africa’s green transition on x (opens in a new window)
• Energy poverty and funding hurdles hold back Africa’s green transition on facebook (opens in a new window)
• Energy poverty and funding hurdles hold back Africa’s green transition on linkedin (opens in a new window)
• Energy poverty and funding hurdles hold back Africa’s green transition on whatsapp (opens in a new window)

Aanu Adeoye

Simply sign up to the Renewable energy myFT Digest -- delivered directly to your inbox.

The effects of a rapidly warming climate are all too evident in Africa. Floods described as “unprecedented” killed more than 200 people in Kenya in May and displaced thousands more. In the Sahel, the semi-arid strip south of the Sahara, climate change is causing desertification that has made livestock production increasingly difficult, exacerbating conflict and driving people to poverty. And, in west Africa, a lethal heatwave earlier this year has been attributed by scientists to human-induced climate change. The situation is expected to get worse.

As the world’s least industrialised continent, Africa currently contributes only 2 to 3 per cent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions from energy and industrial sources, according to UN data. But it is the continent most vulnerable to the effects of global warming, having less reliable infrastructure, energy production and funding to build resilience to climate change.

There is an urgent need for Africa to industrialise. Some 600mn people on the continent, or about half of its population, still lack access to electricity. This has detrimental effects on household income, education and overall economic growth. And 950mn people have no access to gas or electricity for cooking, so instead resort to burning charcoal or firewood.

However, there is a divergence of views on how industrialisation is to be achieved. High-profile figures including Gwede Mantashe, South Africa’s energy minister, are calling for Africa to continue using fossil fuels to generate electricity. Oil-rich nations such as Nigeria and Angola also say it is important for the continent to exploit its mineral resources.

The African Energy Chamber, a lobby group, argues that Africa has the “sovereign right” to develop its energy resources — 125bn barrels of oil and 620tn cubic feet of natural gas, according to the organisation — in a “balanced and sustainable” manner.

And other proponents of continued fossil fuel exploration in Africa say they understand the effects of climate change but believe solving energy poverty should be the most immediate priority. They point to what they call western hypocrisy as financing for fossil fuel projects in Africa becomes harder to come by, even as western countries push back their own net zero targets and continue to license new oilfields.

“Africa should produce every drop of hydrocarbon it can use to power and industrialise Africa,” says Nj Ayuk, chair of the African Energy Chamber — claiming that scenario would add less than 1 per cent to global emissions.

“Climate change is a big issue and we shouldn’t underestimate the challenges,” Ayuk adds, but he argues that Africa should use revenues accrued from drilling fossil fuels to invest in green technologies.

An alternative view exists, though: that Africa should “leapfrog” fossil fuels altogether and skip straight to clean energy to achieve its industrialisation goals. However, Ayuk warns this “doesn’t really make sense” because Africa “cannot afford it”.

James Mwangi, chief executive of Africa Climate Ventures, an investment company, adds that the “leapfrog” framing is wrong because most of the fossil fuels extracted in Africa are exported, with little used for energy generation at home.

Africa already has more renewable energy resources than fossil fuel reserves, notes Mwangi. But more funding and development in renewable power is needed if it is to cover the continent’s own energy needs, he points out. “Investment in green energy is a sound financial decision for Africa,” Mwangi says.

For example, Africa has more than 60 per cent of the world’s best solar resources but only 1 per cent of globally installed solar PV capacity, according to the International Energy Agency.

Wind power exists in abundance, too: a study commissioned by the International Finance Corporation found that the continent has the potential to generate 180,000 terawatt hours of electricity from wind per year — 250 times more than Africa’s electricity demands annually. But Africa only accounts for 1 per cent of global installed wind capacity despite a surge elsewhere in recent years, the study notes.

Africa also needs billions of dollars in climate adaptation financing if it is to build the resilience it needs for a warming planet. An average of $29.5bn in financing — including national government funding and financing flows from western countries — was committed to the continent in 2019 and 2020, according to analysis by the Climate Policy Initiative and the Global Center on Adaptation think-tanks. Adaptation measures include early warning systems, land and water management, and climate-conscious agriculture.

And yet the amount of investment falls short. To meet the targets set for African countries, under the nationally determined contributions in the 2015 Paris Agreement, would require an extra $41.3bn of investment, annually, for the continent, according to the analysis.

At COP26, in 2021, rich nations promised to double the 2019 level of funding for climate adaptation in developing countries by 2025. But investment has instead dropped, according to Patrick Verkooijen, chief executive of the Global Center on Adaptation.

Africa needs $100bn on adaptation finance annually, but receives only $10bn Patrick Verkooijen, Global Center on Adaptation

“The situation is most dire in Africa,” he says. “Africa needs $100bn of adaptation finance annually, but receives only $10bn. Investing in adaptation is not a sunk cost — every [sum of] money spent on adaptation saves lives and ecosystems.”

Currently, about half of the money pledged to Africa comes from multilateral development finance institutions and climate funds, with African and international governments and bilateral development finance agencies making up most of the rest, according to FSD Africa, a UK-funded development agency.

But only 14 per cent comes from the private sector, including pension funds, and private equity firms. In addition, the agency says, climate financing is concentrated in the hands of too few countries: 10 of Africa’s 54 countries receive more than half of the inflows.

Climate Capital

Where climate change meets business, markets and politics.  Explore the FT’s coverage here .

Are you curious about the FT’s environmental sustainability commitments?  Find out more about our science-based targets here

Promoted Content

Explore the series.

Follow the topics in this article

• Climate change Add to myFT
• Renewable energy Add to myFT
• African economy Add to myFT
• Aanu Adeoye Add to myFT

International Edition

Letters: Solar power is safe, efficient. Let's move forward with it.

The St. Joseph County Council is currently considering a solar farm in North Liberty, and at the June 11 council meeting, a concerned citizen asked: “by (leasing this land), yes, we lose a small piece of land,but do we lose a big piece of the future?” The council is set to vote on changes to regulations regardingsolar energy, but council members Amy Drake and Randy Figg are going beyond that by pushing for aone-year moratorium on solar development.

I too, am a concerned citizen, and I support solar. We are already losing pieces of our future by relyingon coal power instead of renewables. Delaying our investment in renewable energy only adds to thedebt we are paying, with extreme weather patterns, droughts and record heat waves impacting ourstate. When it comes to renewables, later is simply too late.

Solar power has been studied for decades, and it is safe and efficient. The waste it produces is merely adrop in the bucket compared to coal power’s output of coal ash, particulate matter and carbon dioxide.Should this moratorium come to a vote, I urge the council to deny it and continue thoughtfuldevelopment of renewable energy.

Wesley Lantz

Justice system

I recently saw Congressman Rudy Yakym on television speaking in support of police and encouraging us to thank them. As my husband is a retired officer and veteran, I greatly appreciate any recognition for his dedication and service.

Sadly, Yakym does not have the same regard for our justice system. His false and disparaging “witch hunt” statements about the conviction of Donald Trump undermine public confidence in our courts. Our judges, jurors, prosecutors, defense attorneys and court staffs in state and federal cases do very hard work and they deserve to be respected. They should not fear for their lives or the safety of their families, but that is the outcome of irresponsible claims like those of Congressman Yakym and many supporters of Donald Trump.

I also find it ironic that Yakym takes a bold stance against antisemitism, then undermines diversity, equity and inclusion work in the military and colleges. Discrimination, ignorance and hatred harm all of us, regardless of the person victimized by them. Until we are all free, we are not truly free.

Ann Carol Nash

The alternative

If you don’t like Donald Trump, what about the alternative? Why vote for Joe Biden? 

Here are just a few reasons:

Worried about the economy? The truth is jobs have increased, spending is strong, wages and salaries have gone up, and one pundit calls our economy “the envy of the world”! 

Regarding health care, Biden not only maintained the popular Affordable Care Act but proposed expanding its dental coverage. Republicans would ax it.

A lot of people worry about crime, yet in 2023 murders fell by over 12 percent, while violent crime is near its lowest in 50 years. 

Biden has made huge strides confronting climate change. Reuters reported that “President Joe Biden’s administration is eager to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 in an effort to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change.” He also restored vital environmental protections and instituted new ones that particularly address poor, vulnerable communities.

Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act addressed our country’s aging infrastructure while simultaneously promoting renewable energies. Since the Act was passed “The U.S. has doubled the pace of cutting carbon emissions”, according to the  Tribune .

Concerned about age? Biden’s four years older than Trump — so what?

Laura Fuderer

• Climate Change
• Emergencies
• Green Living
• Health & Safety
• Land & Cleanup
• Pesticides, Chemicals & Toxics
• Land, Waste & Cleanup
• Substances & Toxics
• Sustainable Practices
• By Business Sector
• Enforcement
• Laws & Executive Orders
• Policy & Guidance
• Regulations
• Administrator Lisa P. Jackson
• Current Leadership
• Staff Directory
• Planning, Budget, and Results
• Doing Business with Us
• Working with Us
• Headquarters Offices
• Regional Offices
• Labs and Research Centers
• Map of EPA Locations

Speeches - By Date

• World Economic Forum, "Sun, Wind and Waves: Renewable ....

World Economic Forum, "Sun, Wind and Waves: Renewable Paradise", Davos, Switzerland

Get news releases by email

Recent additions

• News by Email
• Privacy and Security Notice

The Seal of the United States Environmental Protection Agency

• About the Hub
• Announcements
• Faculty Experts Guide
• Subscribe to the newsletter

Explore by Topic

• Arts+Culture
• Politics+Society
• Science+Technology
• Student Life
• University News
• Voices+Opinion
• About Hub at Work
• Gazette Archive
• Benefits+Perks
• Health+Well-Being
• Current Issue
• About the Magazine
• Past Issues
• Support Johns Hopkins Magazine
• Subscribe to the Magazine

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Credit: Will Kirk / Johns Hopkins University

Johns Hopkins green energy tech lab to open above R House Food Market

The ralph s. o'connor sustainable energy institute secured a state government grant to establish an energy technology lab in baltimore's remington neighborhood.

By Wick Eisenberg

Johns Hopkins University is set to launch a renewable energy lab above R House in Remington, aiming to grow Baltimore's reputation as a tech hub for sustainability innovation.

The Johns Hopkins Ralph S. O'Connor Sustainable Energy Institute (ROSEI) secured a state government grant today to establish the energy technology lab on the second floor of R House, the inventive food market in Baltimore's Remington neighborhood.

The Maryland Department of Commerce's Build Our Future Grant Pilot Program and Fund awarded the $1.25 million grant to help contribute to ROSEI's expansion from basic office space to a headquarters called R.Labs that will include 12,000 square feet of research laboratories and an advanced materials discovery and manufacturing process center.

"To make Maryland more competitive, we need to turbocharge those areas of our economy that are producing fresh ideas and innovative new technologies," Gov. Wes Moore, A&S '01, said in a statement. "These grants will not only help individual businesses grow but will also help establish tools and resources to support growing industries."

The R.Labs New Energy/Tech Infrastructure Hub will focus on innovations in energy transition, including carbon management, energy storage, wind power, and grid optimization.

"Johns Hopkins is grateful to Gov. Wes Moore and the Maryland General Assembly for their vision and dedication in harnessing innovation across Maryland to address the effects of climate change and for prioritizing the financial support needed to build the infrastructure essential for transitioning from a brown to green economy," said Michael Huber, director of Maryland Government Affairs at Johns Hopkins.

Ben Link , ROSEI's managing director, said the state's support will help the institute "to build out state-of-the-art labs and create a long-term home."

"It's a win for Baltimore because it will anchor a new energy hub in our city and build on Remington's reputation for entrepreneurship," Link said. "It's a win for the state of Maryland as well because energy technology will be a major economic driver in the years ahead, making this a direct investment in stimulating the state-level economy."

The Build Our Future fund provides grants for innovation infrastructure projects intended to support various sectors, including energy and sustainability. ROSEI, based in the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering, leads the university's energy-related research and educational programs.

Construction will begin in July and the final facility will be equipped to research innovations in:

• Portable electric battery design and manufacturing as well as integration of power control systems for offshore wind developments;
• Modeling and simulations of increasing renewables and distributed energy resources;
• The use of artificial intelligence and machine learning to model clean energy challenges in grid optimization, offshore wind, EV battery materials and design, and equitable energy transition policies.

"What I'm excited about with this investment from the state of Maryland is that every test that my group conducts in the facility will be more commercially relevant," said Regina García-Méndez , an assistant professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering and a core ROSEI researcher whose battery technology development lab will be located at the new headquarters. "The state-of-the-art facility will enable new research and attract more researchers and collaborations."

Image caption: The state grant will help ROSEI transform office space into a renewable energy laboratory above R House

Image credit : Will Kirk / Johns Hopkins University

Other local technology companies or startups without the finances to establish their own advanced labs will also have access to the new space once the renovation is completed in late 2025.

"The Build Our Future Program is a bold new way to accelerate growth in the innovative sectors where Maryland is poised to lead and dominate," said Maryland Department of Commerce Secretary Kevin Anderson. "These grants will support innovation and spur economic growth across Maryland and help make sure we're competitive in these key industries."

Once the renovation is completed, R.Labs will fulfill an aspiration that Ben Schafer, ROSEI's founding director, has had since the institute launched in 2021. Shortly after the institute was founded, Schafer asked faculty working in sustainable energy how ROSEI could help. The response was unanimous: build an advanced-capabilities clean energy facility.

"R.Labs is the first step in meeting these needs," Schafer said.

Posted in Science+Technology

Tagged community , sustainability , ralph s. o'connor sustainable energy institute

You might also like

News network.

• Johns Hopkins Magazine
• Get Email Updates
• Submit an Announcement
• Submit an Event
• Privacy Statement
• Accessibility

Discover JHU

• About the University
• Schools & Divisions
• Academic Programs
• Plan a Visit
• my.JohnsHopkins.edu
• © 2024 Johns Hopkins University . All rights reserved.
• University Communications
• 3910 Keswick Rd., Suite N2600, Baltimore, MD
• X Facebook LinkedIn YouTube Instagram