ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Solar Report Stunner: Unsubsidized ‘Grid Parity Has Been Reached In India’, Italy–With More Countries Coming in 2014

Deutsche Bank just released new analyses concluding that global solar market will become sustainable on its own terms by the end of 2014, no longer needing subsidies to continue performing.

The German-based bank said that rooftop solar is looking especially robust, and sees strong demand in solar markets in India, China, Britain, Germany, India, and the United States. As a result, Deutsche Bank actually increased its forecast for solar demand in 2013 to 30 gigawatts — a 20 percent increase over 2012.

Here’s Renew Economy with a summary of Deutsche Banks’s logic:

The key for Deutsche is the emergence of unsubsidised markets in many key countries. It points, for instance, to India, where despite delays in the national solar program, huge demand for state based schemes has produced very competitive tenders, in the [12 cents per kilowatt hour] range. Given the country’s high solar radiation profile and high electricity prices paid by industrial customers, it says several conglomerates are considering large scale implementation of solar for self consumption.

“Grid parity has been reached in India even despite the high cost of capital of around 10-12 percent,” Deutsche Bank notes, and also despite a slight rise  in module prices of [3 to 5 cents per kilowatt] in recent months (good for manufacturers).

Italy is another country that appears to be at grid parity, where several developers are under advanced discussions to develop unsubsidized projects in Southern Italy. Deutsche Bank says that for small commercial enterprises that can achieve 50 percent or more self consumption, solar is competitive with grid electricity in most parts of Italy, and commercial businesses in Germany that have the load profile to achieve up to 90 percent self consumption are also finding solar as an attractive source of power generation.

Deutsche bank says demand expected in subsidised markets such as Japan and the UK, including Northern Ireland, is expected to be strong, the US is likely to introduce favourable legislation, including giving solar installations the same status as real estate investment trusts, strong pipelines in Africa and the Middle east, and unexpectedly strong demand in countries such as Mexico and Caribbean nations means that its forecasts for the year are likely to rise.

As Renew Economy also points out, this is the third report in the past month anticipating a bright future for the global solar market: UBS released a report that concluded an “unsubsidized solar revolution” was in the works, “Thanks to significant cost reductions and rising retail tariffs, households and commercial users are set to install solar systems to reduce electricity bills – without any subsidies.” And Macquarie Group argued that costs for rooftop solar in Germany have fallen so far that even with subsidy cuts “solar installations could continue at a torrid pace.”

Here in America, solar power installations boomed over the course of 2011 and 2012, even as the price of solar power systems continued to plunge. To a large extent, the American solar boom has been driven by third party leasing agreements — which are heavily involved in rooftop installation.

Meanwhile, on the international scene, the cost of manufacturing solar panels in China is expected to drop to an all-new low of 42 cents per watt in 2015, and power generated from solar is predicted to undercut that produced by both coal and most forms of natural gas within a decade.

Economy

How Corporations Score Big Profits By Limiting Access To Publicly Funded Academic Research

"Red and blue liquids inside graduated test tubes" by Horia Varlan used under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license

Here’s how the academic publishing industry works: Academics do research (frequently supported by public funds) and submit that research to journals, often paying “$600-$2,000 to either the publisher or the academic society that owns the journal” for the privilege of publication. Then journals send the research back out to other academics to be reviewed (typically pro-bono–a 2008 study estimated the worldwide worth of unpaid peer review was £1.9 billion a year), and the (often for-profit) journal publishers sell access to the published research, mostly to the academic institutions who do the majority of basic research.

The system is big business: The largest of the for profit academic publishers, Elsevier, reportedly earned over $1 billion in profits in 2011 with a profit margin around 35 percent and 71 percent of their revenue coming from academic customers like university libraries.

But the rapid inflation of journal subscription prices–the per subscription cost rose by 215% between 1986 and 2003–has left many of those universities struggling to keep up. In a statement last spring, the Harvard Faculty Council called rising costs to maintain access to scholarly works “untenable” and the University of California San Francisco Library spends 85 percent of their collection budget on journal subscriptions, but “[d]espite cancelling the print component of more than 100 journal subscriptions in 2012 to keep up with a budget reduction, [their] costs still increased by 3 percent.”

Read more

Justice

GOP’s Largest Campaign Contributor Admits To Bribing Foreign Officials

Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who spent as much as $150 million on independent expenditures to bolster Republicans in the 2012 election, has informed the Securities and Exchange Commission that his Las Vegas Sands Corporation “likely violated a federal law against bribing foreign officials.”

“[T]here were likely violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions” of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the company said in its annual regulatory report published on Friday. Late last year, Adelson reportedly held meetings with at least one House GOP leader to discuss “possible changes to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,” arguing that he had been the target of federal investigations under the Act as retribution for his strong support for Republican candidates.

The Las Vegas Sands Corporation is suspected of improperly and in some cases illegally bribing Chinese government officials to expand its business in China. The company may have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with a $700,000 payment to a Chinese associate and worked with organized crime gangs to drive business from mainland China to their Macau casino.

Since the election, Adelson said that plans to double his contributions to Republican candidates and with an estimated net worth of almost $25 billion, he could theoretically spend $500,000 on every single Republican House and Senate nominee for the next 186 years.

Economy

Meet The Press Host Challenges Boehner On GOP Tax Myths

One of the most persistent myths amongst Republicans and conservatives is the notion that lower income tax rates, especially on the wealthy, are the key to restoring the economy. This morning on Meet the Press, when House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) once again trotted out this claim, host David Gregory quite rightly responded that “there’s no iron-clad evidence that lowering marginal tax rates is going to lead to economic growth.”

Strikingly, the exchange began with Boehner making the very uncharacteristic — but entirely correct — point that “we can’t cut our way to prosperity,” and that we have to restore economic growth. As a way to do that, he cited the Republican plan to cut loopholes out of the tax code, and then use the extra fiscal room created by eliminating those deductions to lower tax rates. Gregory responded by pointing out that tax rate hikes under Presidents Reagan and Clinton corresponded with economic booms:

JOHN BOEHNER: We’ve got to find a way through our tax code to promote more economic growth in our country. We can do this by closing loopholes, bringing the rates down for all Americans, making the tax code fairer — it will promote more economic growth.

DAVID GREGORY: But there’s no iron-clad evidence that lowering marginal tax rates is going to lead to economic growth.

BOEHNER: Oh yes there is. There’s mountains…

GREGORY: Bill Clinton raised taxes. President Reagan raised taxes.

BOEHNER: There’s mountains of evidence that if we bring tax rates down, we will help spur economic growth in our country.

GREGORY: That hasn’t been tried before?

BOEHNER: Uh, yeah. Ronald Reagan. 1981. […]

GREGORY: But he raised taxes as well, and it didn’t hurt the economy, did it?

BOEHNER: Listen, he lowered taxes twice. Both in 1981 and again in the 1986 tax reform. When they lowered rates for all Americans, we had this boom in economic growth. Why? Because we got rid of a lot of the silly deductions, brought the rates down, and it helped promote more economic growth in our country.

Watch it:

In general, periods of high economic growth in America over the 20th Century actually occurred alongside much higher top marginal rates than we have now.

Gregory is even more correct than he realizes. One fact neither man brought up is that the 1981 tax cut occurred in conjunction with one of the biggest single cuts in interest rates the Federal Reserve has ever carried out.

By 1980, inflation had risen to nearly 15 percent. In response, Fed Chairman Paul Volcker raised the Federal Funds rate — which in turn drives interest rates throughout the economy — to an historic high of almost 20 percent. The gambit worked. Inflation has been at near-historic lows ever since, and Volcker cut interest rates back down to under 10 percent. Any economist worth their salt would agree that an interest rate hike of that magnitude will bring on a recession, and that a compoarable cut in interest rates will be a big boost to economic growth.
Read more

LGBT

O’Reilly Targets Colorado’s Gay House Speaker, Suggests He’s Protecting Child Molesters

Colorado House Speaker Mark Ferrandino

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly is targeting the first openly-gay House Speaker in Colorado, Mark Ferrandino, for opposing a bill instituting mandatory sentences for sexual predators who target kids, implying that the Speaker is protecting child rapists and stonewalling the measure to exert retribution for the GOP’s decision to block a civil unions bill.

The outburst came after the so-called Jessica’s Law — named after 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford who was sexually assaulted and buried alive by a man convicted of exposing himself to a 5-year-old girl — was sent to committee and rejected in a party-line vote this February. The measure “would have imposed a mandatory sentence of at least 25 years before parole on an offender who commits a sexual assault against a child.”

During an interview with Rep. Libby Szabo (R) — the sponsor of Jessica’s law Colorado — in February, the two speculated that since Ferrandino is gay, he may be hiding something or protecting someone by failing to support the legislation:

O’REILLY: Now this Ferrandino I understand he is the — what, the first openly gay House Speaker in Colorado. He was a fervent gay marriage person. He objected when gay marriage was first tabled because they sent it into the same committee to kill it that he sent Jessica’s law in. All that true so far of this guy?

SZABO: So far you’re correct.

O’REILLY: All right. So this guy doesn’t want tougher mandatory sentences. Have you talked to him about it? Has he said anything to the press about why not?

SZABO: You know, I don’t know that the press in Colorado, they covered this issue very well on — on my side of the issue and on Mr. Lunsford’s side of the issue. But I don’t believe he was willing to speak to them because obviously he’s protecting somebody. Obviously the victims hold more credence with him — I mean not the victim— the perpetrators hold more credence with him than the child victims do.

In reality, the measure had very little support from the law enforcement community or victims’ advocates in Colorado. The Colorado District Attorneys’ Council, Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and Colorado Office of the Public Defender all argued that Jessica’s Law wasn’t necessary and Republicans themselves failed to introduce it when they had the majority.

Instead, the party has used it as a political weapon to attack Democrats, as they did in the 2010 election after a similar measure failed in 2009. The bill has failed four times now in Colorado.

Colorado already imposes mandatory sentencing for crimes of violence and the courts “have the discretion of meting out very long sentences for sex offenders. The State Public Defender’s office said that Colorado currently has the “harshest sex offender (sentencing structures) in the country,” and that “sex offenders in Colorado already go through rigorous hoops before they’re able to receive an early release from their sentences.” Not a single Coloradan testified in favor of the measure.
Read more

Climate Progress

State’s Keystone Report Is The Tar Sands Pits

By Tiffany Germain and Jackie Weidman

Friday, the State Department released a revised draft environmental impact assessment of the Keystone XL pipeline project that irresponsibly ignored the dire environmental impacts of building the pipeline.

In response to the announcement, environmental advocates — including Bill McKibben of 350.org and Sierra Club’s Michael Brune — held a press call to highlight one of the most unbelievable aspects of the analysis: that Keystone “is unlikely to have substantial impact on the rate of development of the oil sands.” It also didn’t account for the impact on climate change and national security. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ own report stated that Keystone is necessary to increase the expansion of tar sands. In 2012, it noted that:

Production from oil sands currently comprises 59 per cent of western Canada’s total crude oil production. In this forecast, oil sands production rises from 1.6 million b/d in 2011 to almost double at 3.1 million b/d by 2020 and 4.2 million b/d by 2025 and 5.0 million b/d by the end of the forecast period in 2030. If the only projects to proceed were the ones in operation or currently under construction, oil sands production would still increase by 54 per cent to 2.5 million b/d by 2020 and then remain relatively flat for the rest of the forecast.

Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska also explained:

Tarsands does not expand unless Keystone XL is built. The State Department’s assumption that tarsands development does not change with or without this pipeline is wrong and laughable. Why would TransCanada spend billions on building the pipeline and millions on lobbying unless this piece of infrastructure is the — not a — but the lynchpin for the expansion of the tarsands. Without this pipeline Canada stays at 2 millions barrels a day, with it they get 3 million barrels a day.

With the addition of the Keystone XL pipeline, production of tar sands would more than double by 2025, leading to a sizeable increase in greenhouse gases. Estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency found that Keystone would increase annual carbon emissions by “up to 27.6 million metric tons, or the equivalent of nearly 6 million cars on the road.” Without the pipeline, tar sands production is estimated to fall flat by 2020.

The State Department’s report also made it clear that at least some of the Keystone oil will be refined and exported, thereby adding nothing to U.S. energy security, a primary reason for building it:

There is existing demand for crude oil, particularly heavy crude oil at refiners in the Gulf Coast area, but the ultimate disposition of crude oil transported by the proposed Project, and any refined products produced from that crude oil, would be determined by future market forces.

This indicates that the refineries will determine the amount of exports of refined fuels made from Keystone petroleum. There is no assurance that all — or any — of the Keystone oil will be consumed in the U.S. This means that the Keystone oil will add little to our energy security.

One thing that State got right is the dismal job increases associated with Keystone. Pro-Keystone groups like the Chamber of Commerce argue that the project would create tends of thousands of jobs, and would provide a much-needed boost to the economy. Yet the State Department’s report found that it would directly create only “3,900″ temporary construction jobs. After construction is complete, the operation of the pipeline would only support 35 permanent and 15 temporary jobs, with “negligible socioeconomic impacts.”

During his State of the Union address, President Obama expanded on his Second Inaugural address, asserting “if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.” New Secretary of State John Kerry — a long time climate hawk — reiterated the urgency of climate action in his first major speech:

The opportunity that we have now in this moment of urgency to lead on the climate concerns… We as a nation must have the foresight and the courage to make the investments necessary to safeguard the most sacred trust we keep for our children and our grandchildren, and that is an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorms, devastating droughts, and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate. President Obama is committed to moving forward on that, and so am I.

Both Kerry and Obama will play significant roles in deciding in whether this pipeline is ultimately approved. Secretary Kerry has echoed time and again the importance of acting on climate change:

I would respectfully say to you that climate change is not something to be feared in response to — the steps to respond to — it’s to be feared if we don’t… I will be a passionate advocate on this not based on ideology but based on facts and science.

Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, is confident that this fight is far from over, and that the public continues to oppose the pipeline. “I don’t think anybody is going to walk away from this fight, because we really can’t walk away from it… my guess is this will produce more determination in a lot of people.” More than 1.4 million emails and letters have poured in from the public to the State Department over the Keystone assessments so far. And, over Presidents Day weekend, more than 35,000 people circled the White House during the largest climate rally in U.S. history.

After the 45-day comment period, a final impact statement will be issued by the State Department. Obama must then decide whether opening up the tar sands to increased development aligns with his inauguration promise to take action on climate, “knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”

Tiffany Germain is a Senior Climate/Energy Researcher in the Think Progress War Room. Jackie Weidman is a Special Assistant at the Center for American Progress.

Politics

Eight Of Dennis Rodman’s Most Absurd Quotes After Meeting North Korea’s Kim Jong Un


Former NBA star Dennis Rodman made a controversial trip to North Korea last week, where he spent unprecedented quality time with the oppressive North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

In a bizarre exchange on This Week, Rodman explained his impressions of the trip. Overall, he was very positive about the entire experience. Here are the eight strangest quotes from the interview:

– “I hate the fact that he’s doing that [human rights violations], but the fact is that, you know what, that’s a human being, though. He let his guard down one day to me, a friend.”

– “It’s a different story because guess what, the kid is only 28 years old, 28. He’s not his dad, not his grandpa. He’s 28 years old.”

– “What I saw in that country, I saw in that country and I saw people respect him and his family and that’s what I mean about that.”

– “He wants Obama to do one thing, call him [...] He said, if you can, Dennis, I don’t want to do war. I don’t want to do war. He said that to me.

– “He loves power. He loves control because others, you know, dad and stuff like that, but he’s just a great guy. He’s just a great guy.”

– “He loves basketball. And I said Obama loves basketball. Let’s start there, all right. Start there.”

– “It’s just like we do over here in America, right? It’s amazing that we have presidents over here do the same thing, right? It’s amazing that Bill Clinton could do one thing and have sex with his secretary and really get away with it and still be powerful.

– Rodman ended with “don’t hate me.”

Watch it:



George Stephanopoulos noted that at this point Rodman has spent more time with the North Korean leader than any other American.

Rodman likely did not see the human rights violations occuring in North Korea, where 200,000 people are allegedly held in political prisons.

North Korea prisoners reportedly have no access to healthcare, have scarce food rations of about 20 grains of corn per day, and are forced to work mining, logging, farming or manufacturing seven days a week. These dangerous conditions have caused prisoners to develop deformities and lose limbs. Female prisoners are also subject to rape and sexual exploitation in exchange for food or less dangerous work.

Rodman’s trip included a basketball game and a party at Kim Jong Un’s palace.

Photo Credit: Jason Mojica/VICE Media

Climate Progress

Atmospheric Warming Altering Ocean Salinity And The Water Cycle

[Taking the opportunity I'm in the hospital to clear out some old unpublished posts -- JR.]

Lawrence Livermore Lab News Release

A clear change in salinity has been detected in the world’s oceans, signaling shifts and acceleration in the global rainfall and evaporation cycle tied directly to climate change.

In a paper published … in the journal Science, Australian scientists from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reported changing patterns of salinity in the global ocean during the past 50 years, marking a clear symptom of climate change.

Lead author Paul Durack said that by looking at observed ocean salinity changes and the relationship between salinity, rainfall and evaporation in climate models, they determined the water cycle has become 4 percent stronger from 1950-2000. This is twice the response projected by current generation global climate models.

“These changes suggest that arid regions have become drier and high rainfall regions have become wetter in response to observed global warming,” said Durack, a post-doctoral fellow at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Scientists monitor salinity changes in the world’s oceans to determine where rainfall has increased or decreased. “It provides us with a gauge — a method of monitoring how large-scale patterns of rainfall and evaporation (the climate variables we care most about) are changing,” Durack said.

With a projected temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, the researchers estimate a 24 percent acceleration of the water cycle is possible.

[JR: Actually the projected warming by century's end is closer to 5°C -- see review of literature here -- which would yield a stunning 40% acceleration of the water cycle.]

Read more

Media

VIEWPOINT: Why We Need To Stop ‘Mansplaining’

On Tuesday night, over the course of three hours, two different men asked me if I could defend the term ‘mansplain.’ Why was it, they both (yes, separately) wanted to know, so different from just being a regular old condescending asshole? So I launched into my usual spiel about the patriarchy, and how men explain things with the assumption that women are stupid, and the privilege that underlies every interaction in which a man expects a woman to know nothing.

Then Wednesday morning, another man asked me the same question.

If the goal of feminism (and, particularly, young feminists on the internet) is to create an inclusive conversation where we can get to the root of systematic behavior that suppresses the ability of women to succeed, then inventing our own terminology — or at least the word ‘mansplain’ — has failed. I’ve spent more time defending and defining the term than using it. And even as it serves to define a certain type of assholeishness, it undermines our understanding of the other forms of privilege.

The concept of mansplaining most likely originated in a 2008 LA Times article titled, “Men Who Explain Things To Me,” in which the author, Rebecca Solnit, recounted the story of a man encouraging her to read a seminal work in Solnit’s field. It turned out to be a book that Solnit herself had written. From there, the portmanteau of “mansplaining” became a sensation among feminists on the internet. It came to define, broadly, when a man speaks to a woman with the assumption that the she knows less than he does about a given topic, even when it’s painfully obvious that she knows more.

As intuitive as that definition might seem, the term is still used wrongly all the time. I’ve heard someone say one man is “mansplaining” to another. I’ve heard someone say that they would “mansplain” something manly — jock itch, beard hair — to me.

Even the New York Times, when it decided that “mansplaining” was in the running for the “word of the year” in 2010, defined the term incorrectly by leaving out the fact that a mansplainer is assuming that a woman knows less than he:
Read more

Health

Romney: I Lost Because Minorities Love Obamacare

Earlier today, Fox News Sunday broadcast former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney first post-campaign interview. In it, he blamed his loss on his poor performance among minorities, who he claimed were seduced by the President’s promise to provide them with affordable health care:

ROMNEY: We did very well with the majority population, but not with minority populations, and that was a failing, that was a real mistake.

CHRIS WALLACE: Why do you think that was?

ROMNEY: Well, I think the Obamacare attractiveness and feature was something we underestimated, particularly among lower incomes. And, uh, just didn’t do as good a job in connecting with that audience as we should have.

During the course of the interview, Romney agreed with Wallace that his “47 percent” comment — his claim that 47 percent of the country will vote for Obama because they are “dependent upon government” and “believe that they are victims” — hurt his campaign by leaving the impression that he did not like many voters. Nevertheless, this explanation of his loss is reminiscent of the explanation he gave his donors for his defeat shortly after the election — Obama won because of “the gifts” he gave to African-Americans, Latinos and young voters.

Ultimately, if Republicans want to appeal voters who turned their backs on the GOP last November, maybe Republicans should consider doing something that will actually make those voters’ lives better instead of working to slash Medicare, Medicaid, and education in order to pay for tax cuts for the very rich.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up