You are here

renewable energy

Homes and commercial buildings account for 74 percent of electricity demand in the United States, making them a critical part of any plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The good news is that policies put into place over the last three decades—including appliance efficiency standards, voluntary labeling programs like ENERGY STAR, and state energy-savings targets—have already helped offset rising demand for electricity and saved consumers billions of dollars. New research shows that with the right policies in place, consumers and the environment can capture even greater benefits.

A new WRI study finds that there are many “win-win” opportunities for the United States to reduce emissions and save money for consumers and businesses.

Over the coming weeks, our blog series, Lower Emissions, Brighter Economy, will evaluate these opportunities across five key areas—power generation, electricity consumption, passenger vehicles, natural gas systems, and hydrofluorocarbons—which together represent 55 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

What if an international climate change agreement could set the rules for years to come, driving greater emissions reductions, more renewable energy and energy efficiency and a shift away from fossil fuel?

A consortium of research organizations, ACT 2015, has been thinking hard about what structure, processes and rules would need to be put in place to create confidence and predictability of action under this agreement.

Much of the discussion in the environmental world focuses on tipping points—beyond which global warming becomes so great it causes ecosystems and economies to collapse. But former Vice President Al Gore thinks we’re reaching a new kind of tipping point, one where climate change action becomes a priority for governments and businesses.

How should politicians prioritize between robust economic growth and solving the problem of climate change?

A new report reveals an encouraging answer: There’s no need to choose. Better Growth, Better Climate, finds that low-carbon investments—if done right—could cost about the same as conventional infrastructure, but would deliver significantly greater economic, social, and environmental benefits in the long-run.

Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, recently launched the latest book in a series on what good fiscal policy should look like in a world of environmental externalities.

The message was clear: Ministers of finance and economics should design their tax systems skillfully so as to tax bad things, like pollution and congestion, rather than good things like work and profit. Not to do so is plain, bad economics.

A new report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Getting Energy Prices Right: From Principle to Practice, argues that the costs of coal, natural gas, gasoline, and diesel fail to account for these fuels’ environmental and social impacts—such as greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and traffic deaths.

Setting prices that reflect these side effects—through taxes, licensing, or cap-and-trade systems—could reduce deaths from fossil fuel-related air pollution by 63 percent, decrease global carbon dioxide emissions by 23 percent, and generate revenues totaling about 2.6 percent of global GDP.


Stay Connected