This was one of our most-viewed videos on Facebook this year.#BestOf2017: She's had her water supply contaminated by coalmining, her milk rendered undrinkable, and watched her property be coated in coal dust. Meet 83-year-old farmer Wendy Bowman, who refused to sell her Hunter Valley property to make way for a coalmine.
Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020, Report Claims
Dominic Dudley, Contributor January 13, 2018
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
The cost of renewable energy is now falling so fast that it should be a consistently cheaper source of electricity generation than traditional fossil fuels within just a few years, according to a new report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
The organization – which has more than 150 member countries – says the cost of generating power from onshore wind has fallen by around 23% since 2010 while the cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity has fallen by 73% in that time. With further price falls expected for these and other green energy options, IRENA says all renewable energy technologies should be competitive on price with fossil fuels by 2020.
Globally, onshore wind schemes are now costing an average of $0.06 per kilowatt hour (kwh), although some schemes are coming in at $0.04 per kwh, while the cost of solar PV is down to $0.10 per kwh. In comparison, the cost of electricity generation based on fossil fuels typically falls in a range of $0.05 to $0.17 per kwh.
IRENA
A delegate walks through the lobby at the 8th Assembly of the International Renewable Energy Agency in Abu Dhabi on January, 2018 (Photo: IRENA).
The figures are contained in IRENA’s Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2017 report, which was released on January 13, the first day of the 8th IRENA Assembly in Abu Dhabi, the capital city of the UAE. The report predicts that solar costs will fall even further in the next few years, with a further halving of typical costs by 2020. That means onshore wind and solar PV projects could be consistently delivering electricity for as little as $0.03 per kwh within two years.
Adnan Amin, director-general of IRENA, says a significant shift is underway in the energy sector. “These cost declines across technologies are unprecedented and representative of the degree to which renewable energy is disrupting the global energy system,” he said.
The expected price falls for green energy will provide a fresh challenge to the market position of legacy fuels and to the countries that rely on them for export earnings, such as many Middle East states which have long looked to oil and gas sales as the bedrock of their economies. It also provides a challenge for some Western countries including the United States, where President Donald Trump has made a point of championing the coal industry and has taken steps to increase oil output.
If renewable energy is indeed able to undercut the cost of legacy fuels, then governments and large corporations building new power plants will almost certainly turn to green energy for any new capacity, which will reduce demand for oil, natural gas and coal.
There are several reasons for the fast-improving cost performance of the key renewable energy technologies. One is the growing preference among governments for competitive bidding processes when handing out contracts to develop new power plants, which is helping to force down the tariffs that project developers can demand. Alongside that, there is a growing base of experienced developers competing for project opportunities around the world. Thirdly, continued advances are being made in the technologies themselves.
While onshore wind and PV solar are leading the way, other sister technologies are also becoming more competitive. IRENA estimates that offshore wind and concentrating solar power should cost in a range of $0.06-$0.10 per kwh by 2020-22.
And although solar and wind power are the main drivers of a shift to renewable energy, other green energy sources are also becoming more competitive. The report points to bio-energy, geothermal and hydropower which, it says, have all been able to compete directly on cost with fossil fuels in some cases over the past year.
The falls in costs is leading to some big investments. IRENA says that since 2013 more than $1 trillion has been invested in renewable energy around the world and the industry now provides nearly 10 million jobs.
“Turning to renewables for new power generation is not simply an environmentally conscious decision, it is now – overwhelmingly – a smart economic one,” said Amin. “We expect the transition to gather further momentum around the world in 2018.”
IRENA
Adnan Amin, director general of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), speaking at the 8th IRENA Assembly in Abu Dhabi on January 13, 2018.
Dominic Dudley is a freelance journalist with almost two decades’ experience in reporting on business, economic and political stories in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Europe.
Futurism
Denmark Breaks Own Record for Electricity Generated via Wind Power
The Wind Rises
Denmark recently set a new record in wind power generation, harvesting 43.4 percent of its electricity from the resource in 2017 — beating its previous best from 2016. The country’s government is hoping to use the momentum to encourage other countries to get on board.
“The price of wind energy is moving in one direction only, and that’s a steep downward trajectory,” commented Denmark’s energy minister Lars Chr. Lilleholt, according to a report from Bloomberg.
While Denmark’s decision to pursue renewable resources is part of a larger global effort to phase out fossil fuels, the country does have something of a vested interest. The world’s biggest turbine maker, Vestas Wind Systems A/S, is Danish. Furthermore, its government holds a controlling stake in Orsted A/S, which remains the biggest operator of offshore wind farms internationally.
Denmark still subsidizes wind power projects, as it has done since the 1970s. However, Lilleholt is confident that this will not be necessary for much longer.
Certain areas of the United States are making strides forward, like the record-breaking results reported in California and the enormous Amazon-backed wind farm set to be constructed in Texas. The future of those plans remains to be seen, however, as calls to discontinue tax credits promoting its usage would seem to be a step in the opposite direction.
AFP
Fossil fuels blown away by wind in cost terms: study
There is a bright future for wind and solar power as they are rapidly becoming cheaper than fossil fuel electricity plants, according to a new study. (AFP Photo/Johnathan Nackstrand)
January 13, 2018. Paris (AFP) – New onshore wind and solar energy projects are set to deliver electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels plants, with other green technologies also rapidly gaining a cost advantage over dirty fuels, a report published Saturday said.
According to a new cost analysis from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), within two years “all the renewable power generation technologies that are now in commercial use are expected to fall within the fossil fuel-fired cost range, with most at the lower end or undercutting fossil fuels”.
It expects renewables will cost between three and 10 US cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) by 2020, while the current cost spectrum for fossil fuel power generation ranges from five to 17 US cents per kwh.
“This new dynamic signals a significant shift in the energy paradigm,” said IRENA’s Director-General, Adnan Amin, in a statement.
“Turning to renewables for new power generation is not simply an environmentally conscious decision, it is now — overwhelmingly — a smart economic one,” he added.
Continued technological advancements are not the only factor helping drive down prices. The report found that the market was becoming more competitive and a number of experienced project developers had emerged in the sector.
The best onshore wind and solar PV projects are expected to deliver electricity for three US cents or less by next year.
But onshore wind and solar are not the only sectors becoming more competitive rapidly. The study found that new bio-energy and geothermal projects commissioned in 2017 had global weighted average costs of around seven US cents per kwh.
IRENA said auction results suggest that two other technologies –concentrating solar power (CSP) and offshore wind — will provide electricity for between 6-10 US cents per kwh by 2020.
“These cost declines across technologies are unprecedented and representative of the degree to which renewable energy is disrupting the global energy system,” said Amin.
The report was released on the first day of the eighth assembly of IRENA, which aims to be a global hub for renewable energy cooperation and information exchange by its 154 member countries.
Kentucky Just Made It Harder For Poor People To Get Health Care
It’s what the Trump administration wants — and more states will likely follow.
By Johnathan Cohn, Senior Correspondent, HuffPost January 12, 2018
The Trump administration on Friday told Kentucky it can go ahead with its controversial Medicaid overhaul ― an initiative that would reduce benefits, require some beneficiaries to work, and generally make it more difficult for people to stay on the program.
Administration officials and their Kentucky counterparts have portrayed the plan as a way to improve the health of low-income residents and encourage self-sufficiency among poor but able-bodied adults. “The result will be a transformational improvement in the overall health of our people and will provide a model for other states to follow,” Matt Bevin, the state’s Republican governor, said at a press conference Friday.
But there’s scant evidence that Kentucky’s changes will have the effects that Bevin and his allies are promising. In fact, of the roughly 95,000 people expected to lose coverage, some will almost surely be people who are working ― or have reasons why they can’t work ― but who failed to satisfy the new system’s paperwork requirements.
Almost by definition, the people likely to lose coverage already have some combination of financial and medical problems, and without coverage, both are likely to get worse. It’s not clear how much this worries Bevin and his allies in Washington ― or whether it worries them at all.
In the new scheme, most working-age adults in Kentucky would have to demonstrate that they have spent at least 80 hours a month working or engaged in employment-related activities, like searching for a job or performing community service. Many would also have to pay premiums, of up to $15 a month.
Anyone who does not pay their premiums or submit paperwork to show their eligibility would lose their coverage and would not be able to reapply for six months, although people who don’t pay premiums could restore coverage by completing a financial literacy course (the details of which aren’t yet clear).
The Kentucky initiative also eliminates a transportation benefit, designed to get poor people to the doctor or hospital when they don’t have the means to do so. And it ends “presumptive” or “retroactive” eligibility, under which Medicaid covers bills from the past three months for people who sign up for Medicaid only after they’ve had a medical episode that landed them in the hospital.
Kentucky’s proposal is likely to prompt legal challenges. If it survives, then the result will almost certainly be a smaller Medicaid program. Both the state and the federal government would likely end up spending less money than they would otherwise. But fewer people would be on Medicaid: The number of beneficiaries would drop by roughly 95,000 within five years, according to official state estimates.
By comparison, Kentucky’s total Medicaid enrollment ― including kids on the Children’s Health Insurance Program ― is about 1.25 million right now, according to official statistics.
In theory, the new requirements would not affect children, the elderly, pregnant women, primary caregivers or the “medically frail,” because Kentucky’s proposal explicitly exempts them. But those categories are narrower than they might seem, experts warned Friday as they pored over the final proposal and checked it against previous versions. (Every analyst studying it has warned that their conclusions are still a little tentative.)
“Medically frail,” for example, doesn’t appear to include people with serious chronic diseases that make jobs difficult to find and keep. And the new paperwork requirements will be difficult for some people to satisfy ― because they can’t get the right documentation, for example, or because overwhelmed state offices won’t be responsive to questions.
As a result, some people who remain eligible for Medicaid will almost surely end up losing coverage anyway. It’s happened that way before, when states introduced work requirements for food stamps and straightforward cash assistance.
“The policy could allow many people to fall through the cracks, including those with chronic health conditions, and those with mental health or substance use disorders such as opioid addiction,” Hanna Katch, a senior analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told HuffPost. “And for those who are eligible for an exemption, the policy could still require someone who is medically frail, for example, to jump through administrative hoops to demonstrate that they are eligible for an exemption.”
Kentucky isn’t the only state that wants to impose these kinds of restrictions on Medicaid. Nearly a dozen states have similar requests sitting in Washington, awaiting approval from the Trump administration that they’re almost certain to get. More could follow soon.
Friday’s approval of Kentucky’s new plan came one day after the Trump administration announced it would approve work requirements. This represented a considerable policy shift. Previously, the Obama administration had rejected such requests, arguing that work requirements violate Medicaid’s guarantee of health care for poor people. These are the same arguments that advocates for the poor are likely to make if and when they sue to block the changes.
Trump administration officials, like their Kentucky counterparts, know this. In their letter approving the proposal, they previewed their defense by making the same argument they did on Thursday ― that requiring able-bodied Medicaid recipients to work would improve their health outcomes and help them become familiar with the way private health insurance works. That is why, the administration said, it was within its rights to approve Kentucky’s request as a “demonstration project.”
But there’s very little evidence to suggest Kentucky’s overhaul will improve health outcomes, and quite a lot of evidence to suggest it will actually worsen them. Multiple studies, some of them focusing on Kentucky specifically, have shown that giving people Medicaid makes them healthier and more financially secure, which in turn makes it easier for them to find and hold on to jobs.
There is also little reason to think these changes would make Kentucky’s Medicaid program more efficient. On the contrary, new requirements such as checking to make sure people have jobs will inevitably require more administrative work ― not just for the people who want Medicaid, but for the state government as well.
Retroactive eligibility ― a key if underappreciated provision of Medicaid in most states ― doesn’t simply help low-income people avoid crippling medical debt. It also helps finance the operation of safety net hospitals. Ending it, as Kentucky plans to do, would likely hurt both. When another state, Indiana, experimented with having Medicaid recipients contribute toward the cost of their Medicaid, large numbers did not, and they ended up losing coverage as a result.
Those are just some of the reasons to think the real motivation for these changes has little to do with health outcomes, efficiency or the economy as a whole. A more plausible explanation is that Republican officials ― including Bevins and Seema Verma, the Trump administration official in charge of Medicaid ― think too many able-bodied adults are on the program. In fact, Verma has said this explicitly before.
Many Americans ― quite possibly most ― would have no problem linking Medicaid and work. But nearly 80 percent of people on Medicaid are already in families where somebody is employed, and nearly 60 percent work themselves, according to data from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. And of those who don’t work, most are in school or caring for a family member, or have a medical condition that they say prevents them from working. Other studies have yielded similar findings.
That all of this should be happening in Kentucky is ironic. Although a relatively conservative state, smack in the heart of what now qualifies as Trump country, Kentucky enthusiastically embraced the Affordable Care Act when it became law. It took advantage of new federal money to expand its Medicaid program, so it would be available to all people with incomes below or just above the poverty line.
Between 2013 and 2016, the share of Kentucky’s residents without insurance fell from 20.4 percent to 7.8 percent. That was the single biggest drop of any state in the country.
But that change took place while Steve Beshear, a Democratic governor enthusiastic about helping poor people get health insurance, was in charge. Bevins, his successor and a loud critic of “Obamacare,” campaigned on a promise to roll back the expansion. Although he backed off that promise ― perhaps because many of those who supported him would have been among the hundreds of thousands losing coverage ― he has continued to suggest Medicaid needs radical changes because, he says, it encourages dependency.
Bevin has also made a threat that if he can’t get his way on the work requirement and other changes, he will go ahead and roll back the expansion after all. That would leave a much larger number of Kentucky residents, perhaps approaching half a million, without health insurance.
Joy Reid responds to Pastor Mark Burns, who said that she should “move to Haiti” after his appearance on AM JOY, during which Joy expressed compassion for Haitian and all immigrants. Watch their full interview: http://www.msnbc.com/…/trump-s-hole-comments-doubted-by-pas…
Joy Reid responds to Pastor Mark Burns, who said that she should "move to Haiti" after his appearance on AM JOY, during which Joy expressed compassion for Haitian and all immigrants. Watch their full interview: http://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/trump-s-hole-comments-doubted-by-pastor-on-am-joy-1136410691865?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_jy
‘American Dream’ photo of West Point grad from Haiti goes viral
Tears stream down the face of West Point Cadet Alix Idrache during the 2016 commencement ceremony at the U.S. Military Academy. VITO T. BRYANT/U.S. ARMY
By DAN LAMOTHE | The Washington Post | Published: May 25, 2016
As 2nd Lt. Alix Schoelcher Idrache stood at attention during the commencement ceremony at West Point, New York, on Saturday, he was overcome with emotion. Tears rolled down both cheeks, but his gloved left hand held firm on his white, gold and black “cover,” the dress headgear that Army cadets wear.
The photograph of Idrache, by Army Staff Sgt. Vito T. Bryant, was published Tuesday on the Facebook page of West Point’s U.S. Military Academy, and it almost immediately went viral. Part of that is Idrache’s background: He worked his way through one of the nation’s most prestigious military schools after immigrating to the United States from Haiti, earning his citizenship and serving for two years as an enlisted soldier with the Maryland Army National Guard, according to Army records.
“I woke up this morning and found my face all over Facebook and with it myriad of amazing comments about my accomplishments,” Idrache wrote Tuesday on Facebook. “I am humbled and shocked at the same time. Thank you for giving me a shot at the American Dream and may God bless America, the greatest country on earth.”
On West Point’s Instagram page, he left another message thanking people for their support. Bryant, the photographer, “captured a moment that I will never forget,” Idrache said. He credited past generations of soldiers and Capt. Kristen Griest, 1st Lt. Shaye Haver and Maj. Lisa Jaster, the three West Point graduates who last year became the first women to graduate from the Army’s grueling Ranger School.
“Three things came to mind and led to those tears,” Idrache wrote. “The first is where I started. I am from Haiti and never did I imagine that such honor would be one day bestowed on me. The second is where I am. Men and women who have preserved the very essence of the human condition stood in that position and took the same oath. Men who preserved the Union [in] a dark period of this country’s history. Men who scaled the face of adversity and liberated Europe from fascism . . . Women like CPT Griest, LT Haver, MAJ Jaster who rewrote the narrative and challenged the status quo to prove themselves worthy of being called Rangers.”
The third thing Idrache thought about, he wrote, is his future. Shortly after he leaves West Point, he will report to Fort Rucker, Alabama, to start flight school.
“Knowing that one day I will be a pilot is humbling beyond words,” Idrache wrote. “I could not help but be flooded with emotions knowing that I will be leading these men and women who are willing to give their all to preserve what we value as the American way of life. To me, that is the greatest honor. Once again, thank you.”
Idrache was a leader in his class of 950 cadets. According to a West Point news release, he was named a regimental commander last summer. Army officials at West Point said that he was on leave Thursday and not available for comment. His home town is listed as New Carrollton, Maryland, a Washington suburb.
Column: Your response to Trump’s racist ‘shithole’ comment will be remembered
President Donald Trump listens during a meeting Jan. 9, 2018, with lawmakers on immigration policy in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington. In a meeting days later, he used profane language when talking about immigration. (Evan Vucci / AP)
Rex Huppke, Contract Reporter, Chicago Tribune January 13, 2018
What did you say when President Donald Trump referred to Haiti, El Salvador and some African nations as “shithole countries”?
What did you say when the president of the United States followed that comment by suggesting he’d rather see more immigrants from countries like Norway?
Whether now or in the future, you will be asked this question: What did you say?
Did you call out the obvious racism behind those statements? Did you acknowledge that the leader of the free world — by title, anyway — had shown himself to be a white supremacist, casually expressing his dislike of brown-skinned immigrants and preference for white European immigrants?
Were you outraged that such comments from a sitting president were antithetical to the ideals that have always made America a beacon of hope and opportunity?
What did you say?
Did you speak out?
Did you denounce the comments, as Rep. Mia Love, a Utah Republican whose parents came to America from Haiti, did, saying in a statement: “This behavior is unacceptable from the leader of our nation. … The President must apologize to both the American people and the nations he so wantonly maligned.”
Or did you keep quiet?
Take note, because you will be asked. Trump’s has been a presidency filled with jaw-dropping moments of offensive behavior, but this one will stand out over time, both for its profane nature and its naked racism.
So what did you say?
Did you look for excuses? Did you toss out a “Well, what about …” scenario you thought might take the heat off?
Did you scream something about “identity politics” and try to pretend that this is the fault of others, not the fault of the transparently racist old man in the White House?
Did you say he has a point? Did you say, “Well, those countries are shitholes, aren’t they?”
Did you forget how people once described immigrants from Italy and Ireland? Did you forget the words on a plaque at the Statue of Liberty?
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Did you forget those words, or just ignore them? Did you smile about a tax break and say nothing?
Did you not put the pieces together and consider all the other times Trump has shown us exactly who he is?
Did you tamp down memories of his calls for the execution of the Central Park Five, even after the young men, four black and one Latino, were found innocent?
Did you explain away what Trump was implying in this tweet from 2013: “According to Bill O’Reilly, 80% of all the shootings in New York City are blacks-if you add Hispanics, that figure goes to 98%. 1% white.”
Did you disregard his years-long birther crusade against the nation’s first black president? His description of Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals? His regular criticism that immigrants coming from predominately nonwhite nations are examples of those countries’ “worst people”?
Did you not let yourself see the pattern? Did you twist logic into knots and blame it on the media? On political correctness?
What did you say when our president called other countries “shitholes” and you had to shield your children’s ears from profanity on the nightly news?
What did you tell your children about this moment? How did you explain the president’s words?
Tell me, what did you say? Mark it down, let it be known. Because you will be asked this again someday.
And if you stayed silent, if you made excuses, if you tried to fool yourself into believing this is appropriate presidential behavior, if you let it slide because this presidency might somehow line your pocketbook, then you will be remembered as complicit, as one who stood by and let America’s decency get dragged through the mud.
And if you laughed, or if you smiled, or if you nodded your head in agreement, you will be remembered just as Trump will: as a racist, a fool and an absolute embarrassment.
Donald Trump cancels London visit amid protest fears
President will not open new US embassy next month, with secretary of state Rex Tillerson likely to take his place
Heather Stewart, Political editor, and David Smithin, Washington January 12, 2018
Donald Trump and Theresa May pictured in Brussels ahead of a Nato summit meeting in May last year. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
Donald Trump has cancelled a visit to Britain next month to open the new US embassy in London, amid fears of mass protests.
The president claimed on Twitter that the reason for calling off the trip was his displeasure at Barack Obama having sold the current embassy for “peanuts” and built a replacement for $1bn (£750m). “Bad deal,” he wrote.
But the embassy’s plan to move from Mayfair to Nine Elms in London was first reported in October 2008, when George W Bush was still president.
The London mayor, Sadiq Khan, said Trump had “got the message” that many Londoners staunchly opposed his policies and actions.
Related: The fabulous new US embassy is best not tainted by a Trump visit, Oliver Wainwright
“It appears that President Trump got the message from the many Londoners who love and admire America and Americans but find his policies and actions the polar opposite of our city’s values of inclusion, diversity and tolerance,” Khan said on Friday.
“His visit next month would without doubt have been met by mass peaceful protests. This just reinforces what a mistake it was for Theresa May to rush and extend an invitation of a state visit in the first place.”
The prime minister invited Trump for a state visit when she became the first world leader to visit the president in the White House a year ago. Activists immediately pledged to stage protests and MPs have said they would not give the president the opportunity to address parliament.
Asked about Trump’s cancellation, a Downing Street spokesman repeated the government’s longstanding position that “an invitation has been extended and accepted, but no date has been set”.
The White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said: “The invitation was made and has been accepted we are still working to finalise a date.”
Instead of a state visit, it had been expected that Trump would make a brief, less formal “working visit” in February to cut the ribbon on the embassy in south-west London, and hold meetings with May. Officials had also been examining plans for the president to meet the Queen without the pomp of a full-blown state banquet.
Government sources suggested Washington had signalled that the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, would instead open the embassy.
Rex Tillerson.
Trump confirmed on Twitter late on Thursday night that the trip was off. “Reason I canceled my trip to London is that I am not a big fan of the Obama Administration having sold perhaps the best located and finest embassy in London for “peanuts,” only to build a new one in an off location for 1.2 billion dollars,” he wrote just before midnight local time. “Bad deal. Wanted me to cut ribbon-NO!”
Citing security and environmental reasons, the US state department agreed to sell the current embassy building in Grosvenor Square to the Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Co, which plans to turn it into a luxury hotel. Estimates put the site’s value at £500m before it was made a listed building, which would have diminished the value because of restrictions on development.
British relations with the president hit a low late last year when May criticised his decision to retweet videos posted by the far-right extremist group Britain First.
Trump responded by tweeting directly to the prime minister that she should focus on tackling domestic terrorism.
The government was so concerned about his decision to share the videos that Britain’s ambassador to Washington, Sir Kim Darroch, took the rare step of raising the issue directly with the White House.
London’s new US embassy: a very diplomatic America on Thames
London’s new US embassy may be just a glass cube with disguised fortifications, but it is also restrained, efficient, green… the antithesis of Donald Trump
Trump’s ambassador to London, Woody Johnson, subsequently insisted: “The president and the prime minister have a very, very good relationship. I know the president admires and respects the prime minister greatly.”
May’s government has been keen to strike up a close relationship with the Trump administration despite his erratic behaviour, because of Britain’s desire to strike a swift trade deal with the world’s largest economy when it leaves the European Union.
Trump has sparked alarm among diplomats by repeatedly entering into Twitter spats with key public figures, including the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, to whom he recently boasted about the size of the US nuclear arsenal.
The White House has been rocked in recent days by the revelations in an explosive book, Fire and Fury, by the US journalist Michael Wolff, who suggested senior figures in the administration questioned the president’s fitness for office.
Asked about the revelations last weekend, May said she believed they were not serious, and Trump was a man making decisions “in the interests of the United States”.
A delegate walks through the lobby at the 8th Assembly of the International Renewable Energy Agency in Abu Dhabi on January, 2018 (Photo: IRENA).
Adnan Amin, director general of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), speaking at the 8th IRENA Assembly in Abu Dhabi on January 13, 2018.
The Wind Rises
There is a bright future for wind and solar power as they are rapidly becoming cheaper than fossil fuel electricity plants, according to a new study. (AFP Photo/Johnathan Nackstrand)
Donald Trump and Theresa May pictured in Brussels ahead of a Nato summit meeting in May last year. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
Rex Tillerson.