A much larger investment in deployment of existing energy efficiency technologies and stronger policy measures would enable major progress toward meeting the goals of the Paris climate deal, the International Energy Agency said in a new report.
Why it matters: Nothing of the sort is happening right now, and in fact progress in energy efficiency is slowing, IEA warned.
What they found: The report lays out an "efficient world scenario" (EWS) — one that enables in gains in buildings, transportation, industry and buildings — to help energy-related emissions peak in 2020 and then fall significantly.
By the numbers: The scenario envisions global investment of $584 billion annually through 2025, rising to $1.3 trillion annually in 2026–2040 — but nothing on that scale is happening today.
And as seen in the chart above, there's been higher energy demand growth in the last year than in the recent past.
Put it all together and global energy intensity — an efficiency metric based on energy used per unit of GDP — fell by its smallest amount since 2010 last year, IEA said.
Tesla announced Thursday night that it's now selling a somewhat less costly, $45,000 version of its Model 3 sedan that has a 260-mile range.
Why it matters: The mass-market Model 3 is critical to the Silicon Valley automakers' future and, more broadly, pushing electric vehicles into the mainstream.
But, but, but: It's less expensive than models currently available, which start at $49,000 and go up significantly from there. But still not the $35,000 base price offering initially pledged when Tesla first announced the Model 3.
Details: The new offering, according to Tesla, has a battery structure that's the same as pricier versions, but with fewer cells. It has a delivery time estimate of 6–10 weeks.
What they're saying: Over at Greentech Media, Julia Pyper notes that "Tesla supporters will likely see today's news as a positive development," and offers some important context...
A recently formed group that's using veteran Washington, D.C. insiders to push for a carbon tax spent $150,000 on lobbying in the third quarter, a disclosure filing shows.
Why it matters: The amount reported on March 16 by the heavyweight firm Squire Patton Boggs on behalf of Americans for Carbon Dividends is, needless to say, quite modest by beltway standards.
But that amount — which tallies the group's initial formal lobbying since its formation — is slated to increase along with other aspects of the much wider, 7-figure advocacy push, according to Ted Halstead, the group's CEO.
Background: Americans for Carbon Dividends is the recently formed advocacy offshoot of the Climate Leadership Council, whose leaders include James Baker and other GOP senior statesmen.
The big picture: The groups are pushing a plan that includes...
ICYMI: Americans for Carbon Dividends, backed by interests including the nuclear power operator Exelon and renewables companies, made headlines this month when ExxonMobil pledged $1 million over 2 years.
What's next: My eyes are peeled for the Q3 filing from the Alliance for Market Solutions Action, another group pushing for conservatives to embrace a revenue-neutral carbon tax married to repeal of regulations.
But, but, but: These filings don't capture all the lobbying action around CO2 taxes. For instance, Shell, which backs CO2 pricing, also lists the topic in its own reports.
Go deeper:
