Cadbury Nigeria Plc (CADBUR.ng) listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange under the Food sector has released it’s 2019 abridged results.For more information about Cadbury Nigeria Plc (CADBUR.ng) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Cadbury Nigeria Plc (CADBUR.ng) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Cadbury Nigeria Plc (CADBUR.ng) 2019 abridged results.Company ProfileCadbury Nigeria Plc manufactures and markets a range of chocolate malt drink mixes, sweets, powder beverages and chewing gums in Nigeria. The company was established in the 1950s to source cocoa beans from Nigeria for the Cadbury Group; it then branched into re-packing imported bulk products and grew rapidly into a fully-fledged manufacturing operation producing a range of popular Cadbury brands. Cadbury Bournvita is the company’s flagship product which is a brand of malted and chocolate malt drink mixes that has energy and nutritional properties. The company introduced other Cadbury brands into its range in the 1970s; TomTom, a large black and white sweet for soothing relief; Cadbury Buttermilk, a delicious sweet with a butter and mint flavour; Tang, a popular powdered beverage; and Clorets and Trident, brands of chewing gum. Cadbury Nigeria Plc has a 99.66% stake in Cadbury Nigeria Plc Cocoa Processing Plant which sources cocoa powder for the manufacturing of Cadbury Bournvita. Mondelez International has a majority equity-interest of 74.97% in Cadbury Nigeria Plc through its holding in Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Limited. The remaining 25.03% equity-ownership is held by a diverse group of Nigerian individuals and institutional shareholders. Cadbury Nigeria Plc’s head office is in Lagos, Nigeria. Cadbury Nigeria Plc is listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange
Total Kenya Limited (TOTL.ke) listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange under the Energy sector has released it’s 2019 annual report.For more information about Total Kenya Limited (TOTL.ke) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Total Kenya Limited (TOTL.ke) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Total Kenya Limited (TOTL.ke) 2019 annual report.Company ProfileTotal Kenya Limited is the largest oil and gas marketer in Kenya with an extensive network of service stations and fuel depots, liquefied petroleum gas filling plants and aviation depots. The Kenyan oil and gas company is a subsidiary of the global Total Group which is the fourth-largest publicly traded integrated international oil and gas company in the world with a presence in over 100 countries. The company was founded in 1955 as OZO East Africa Limited but changed its name to Total Oil Products East Africa Limited in 1988, making it the first multi-national oil company listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange. The company changed its name to Total Kenya Limited in 1991. Total Kenya Limited has more than 176 service stations, 5 wholly-owned fuel depots and 3 jointly-owned depots, 2 liquefied petroleum gas filling plants, 1 lubricant blending plant and 5 aviation depots. Its head office is in Nairobi, Kenya. Total Kenya Limited is listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange
United Kingdom Photographs: Martin Gardner Manufacturers Brands with products used in this architecture project ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/804218/the-quest-strom-architects Clipboard Main Contractor: The Quest / Strom Architects Manufacturers: Bournemouth Glass, Glazing Co, Purbeck Capstone ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/804218/the-quest-strom-architects Clipboard Save this picture!© Martin Gardner+ 17 Share 2015 Barton Engineers Architects: Ström Architects Area Area of this architecture project Structural Engineer: Houses CopyAbout this officeStröm ArchitectsOfficeFollowProductsWoodConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesSwanageEnglandUnited KingdomPublished on January 30, 2017Cite: “The Quest / Strom Architects” 30 Jan 2017. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021.
Nagus House / IASE ArquitectosSave this projectSaveNagus House / IASE Arquitectos 2018 Houses ArchDaily Area: 345 m² Year Completion year of this architecture project Year: “COPY” Nagus House / IASE Arquitectos “COPY” Architects: IASE Arquitectos Area Area of this architecture project ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/913776/nagus-house-iase-arquitectos Clipboard CopyHouses, Houses Interiors•Córdoba, Argentina Argentina CopyAbout this officeIASE ArquitectosOfficeFollowProductsSteelStoneConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesInterior DesignResidential InteriorsHouse InteriorsCordobaArgentinaPublished on March 27, 2019Cite: “Nagus House / IASE Arquitectos” [Casa Nagus / IASE Arquitectos] 27 Mar 2019. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021.
Linkedin Email Facebook Print RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Advertisement TAGSKeeping Limerick PostedlimerickLimerick Post Twitter WATCH: “Everyone is fighting so hard to get on” – Pat Ryan on competitive camogie squads Limerick Ladies National Football League opener to be streamed live Roisin Upton excited by “hockey talent coming through” in Limerick LimerickNewsGardai searching for male after reports of shots fired at Limerick halting site InboxBy David Raleigh – February 7, 2021 3919 WhatsApp Donal Ryan names Limerick Ladies Football team for League opener Gardai are hunting at least one male who allegedly fired shots into a halting site in Limerick earlier tonight.The male was traveling on a scooter that drove into the halting site and fired shots shortly before 8pm.Sign up for the weekly Limerick Post newsletter Sign Up It’s unclear if the alleged shooter was alone or if they were assisted by others.An informed source said that after the shots were fired, a number of people attempted to stop the individual who fled from the scene on foot.Gardai are understood to have seized a scooter as part of their enquiries.A Garda spokesperson said: “Gardaí in Henry Street attended the scene of shots fired at a location on Childers Road, Limerick this evening at approximately 7.45pm.”“No damage to any property and no persons injured.”“Investigations are ongoing,” they added.The area has been sealed off to allow gardai carry out an examination of the scene. Limerick’s National Camogie League double header to be streamed live Billy Lee names strong Limerick side to take on Wicklow in crucial Division 3 clash Previous articleTom Savage: Huge pressure on professional athletes to secure their futureNext articleWATCH: O’Mahony red card and Burns blunder costs Ireland against Wales David Raleigh
When Will Distressed Sales ‘Normalize’? With much of the talk surrounding the housing market centered on “normalization” or returning to its pre-crisis state, one metric which the market is watching is the distressed sales share—the share of REO and short sales that comprise total residential home sales.For February 2016, the distressed sales share declined by 2.9 percentage points over-the-year (and 0.4 percentage points over-the month) down to 11 percent, according to data released by CoreLogic on Thursday.At their peak in January 2009, distressed sales accounted for nearly one-third of all residential home sales (32.4 percent) but has been declining steadily since then. By comparison, the pre-crisis share of distressed sales was typically around 2 percent; CoreLogic estimates that if the current rate of year-over-year decline continues, the distressed sales share will reach the “normal” pre-crisis level in slightly more than two years.“Prior to the housing crash, the distressed share of total sales averaged about 2 percent,” CoreLogic Chief Economist Frank Nothaft said. Rising home prices have bolstered borrowers mortgage equity, and has been a driver of the large decreases in distressed sales. “If the current housing and mortgage market trends continue, we would expect the distressed sales share to get to the pre-crash level by mid-2018.”February’s REO sales share of 7.8 percent was less than a third of what it was at its peak of 27.9 percent in January 2009. Like the overall distressed sales share, February’s REO sales share was down by 2.9 percentage points over-the-year and is the lowest share for any February since 2007.Meanwhile, the short sales share for February was 3.3 percent, and has remained in the 3 to 4 percent range since falling below 4 percent in mid-2014, according to CoreLogic.All but nine states recorded a year-over-year decline in distressed sales share in February 2016; the five states with the highest share were Maryland (19.9), Connecticut (19.1), Michigan (18), Florida (17.5), and Illinois (17.1) while North Dakota had the lowest distressed sales share at 2.5 percent. But for all the year-over-year declines, only North Dakota and the District of Columbia had a distressed sales share within one percentage point of their pre-crisis levels.California was the state that in February 2016 experienced the largest decline in distressed sales share from its peak. Since reaching a peak of 67.4 percent in January 2009, the distressed sales share in California has fallen by 59.8 percentage points.The five metros with the highest distressed sales share in February were Baltimore (19.8), Chicago (19.4), Tampa (19.1), Orlando (19.1) and Las Vegas (14.1). Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago CoreLogic Distressed Sales REO Short Sales 2016-05-05 Brian Honea Home / Daily Dose / When Will Distressed Sales ‘Normalize’? Tagged with: CoreLogic Distressed Sales REO Short Sales About Author: Brian Honea May 5, 2016 1,505 Views The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago Brian Honea’s writing and editing career spans nearly two decades across many forms of media. He served as sports editor for two suburban newspaper chains in the DFW area and has freelanced for such publications as the Yahoo! Contributor Network, Dallas Home Improvement magazine, and the Dallas Morning News. He has written four non-fiction sports books, the latest of which, The Life of Coach Chuck Curtis, was published by the TCU Press in December 2014. A lifelong Texan, Brian received his master’s degree from Amberton University in Garland. Sign up for DS News Daily The Week Ahead: Nearing the Forbearance Exit 2 days ago Governmental Measures Target Expanded Access to Affordable Housing 2 days ago Share Save Related Articles Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Servicers Navigate the Post-Pandemic World 2 days ago Print This Post Data Provider Black Knight to Acquire Top of Mind 2 days ago Previous: DS News Webcast: Thursday 5/5/2016 Next: HUD Addresses Affordable Housing Crisis The Best Markets For Residential Property Investors 2 days ago Demand Propels Home Prices Upward 2 days ago in Daily Dose, Featured, News, REO Subscribe
acilo/iStockBy JULIA JACOBO, ABC News(NEW YORK) — The U.S. is set to officially withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement on Wednesday, three years after President Donald Trump announced his intent to remove the country from participating in the global forum to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.The historic accord seeks to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius, the value that climate scientists have determined will have disastrous consequences if exceeded. Trump has assailed the agreement as economically detrimental and claimed it could cost the country 2.5 million jobs by 2025. He also said it gave other major emitters, such as China, a free pass.While a number of environmental policy experts believe the move was a step back from what was previously seen as an era of environmental responsibility during the Obama administration, several who spoke to ABC News on the issue agreed that the U.S. has the ability to regain a title as a world leader in climate action in the coming years.The U.S. lost its standing as a climate leader under Trump: ExpertsSince 2017, Trump has walked back dozens of environmental protections, including several on drilling and emissions. The Obama administration, on the other hand, influenced other major emitters around the world to take action and former Vice President Joe Biden has pledged to pursue even more aggressive environmental goals if he is elected president.Biden has vowed to re-enter the Paris accord if elected, a move that could take less than six months, Varun Sivaram, senior research scholar at Columbia University’s SIPA Center on Global Energy Policy, told ABC News.“Over the last four years, the Trump administration has sharply diminished the United States’ standing in the world,” in terms of environmental policy, Sivaram said.“The United States is already viewed around the world by other countries, our allies and adversaries alike, as kind of global scofflaw, as a country that can’t be counted on to take its alliances seriously,” he added. “And we’ve done it time and time again in the last four years, in other areas of foreign relations and especially in the area of climate.”During Trump’s first three years in office, the communique for the G20 summit did not include any mention of climate change, and the U.S. has not even come close to meeting its goal set at the 2015 Paris summit to reduce emissions by 26% to 28% by 2025, according to the experts.The U.S. also has not kept its commitment to double funding for innovation and clean energy research development by 2021, experts said.A projection by the Energy Information Administration found that Trump is on track to preside over one of America’s sharpest drops in fossil fuel emissions — 10% for 2020. However, that decrease, which the EIA says is due to the COVID-19 pandemic, represents the largest drop since the 2008 recession, which saw a 7.3% decline.The environment is on the ballot, experts sayWhen voters cast their ballots on Election Day, many will be making the decision on how the country will move forward on climate action, experts said.Trump’s administration has gone after the strict emissions regulations in California, for instance, and experts expect him to continue denying the science behind topics such as climate change, natural disasters and even the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as gravitate toward an expansion of oil and gas drilling.Frances Moore, assistant professor in the department of environmental science and policy at the University of California, Davis, said she believes that if Trump is re-elected, it would cause the Paris Agreement to experience a “slow, anemic decline.”“It’s unlikely, I think, that the Paris Agreement forum could survive as a serious international agreement that’s really motivating countries to do things that they otherwise wouldn’t be doing,” if Trump were to remain president, she said.Biden has outlined his commitment to protect the environment with a proposed a $5 trillion plan. His plan to address the climate emergency would aspire to a 100% clean energy economy and reaching net-zero emissions no later than 2050.“The most important aspect” for federal climate action would be for the U.S. to resume international leadership, Philip Duffy, climate scientist and president and executive director of the Woodwell Climate Research Center, told ABC News.“There’s a potential that that forum could really be re-invigorated by a Biden administration,” Moore said. “And in particular, if a Biden administration were to kind of re-energize the U.S. domestic climate policy, that in turn will have a knock-on effect in the international arena.”While Biden’s climate plan has been recognized as the most ambitious the U.S. has ever proposed, it still may not hit the mark, according to some critics.His goal to zero-out electricity emissions by 2035, while aggressive, likely won’t do enough to reduce greenhouse gases in the time that’s needed, wrote The Week correspondent Ryan Cooper, and preventing the rest of the developing world, such as India, from following in China’s emission-heavy footsteps would require a robust international investment fund, according to an analysis by Jacob Fawcett in the People’s Policy Project.Republicans, on the other hand, have criticized Biden’s climate plan as being too expensive, with Vice President Mike Pence describing it as “a $2 trillion version of the Green New Deal” during his debate with Sen. Kamala Harris last month.The US didn’t need to leave the agreement in the first placeTrump said he withdrew from the Paris Agreement because it imposed an unfair burden on the U.S. and has done little to slow down emissions from other countries.However, if the U.S. found the goals it set for itself in 2015 to be too ambitious, it could have simply changed them, rather than withdraw from the Paris accord altogether, according to the rules of the agreement.The 195 countries that signed on to the accord made a voluntary and unilateral pledge about what they thought they could accomplish, the experts said. This included developing countries that had refused to make any sort of commitment in the past as well as some developed nations.The agreement also included a framework to assess progress every five years. This would enable governments to alter their commitments, known as nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, ideally by making them more ambitious as technology costs went down, but to also scale them back without penalty, if necessary.“It’s not a one-size-fits-all, top-down commitment, where, for example, everybody would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by X percent,” Duffy said.Currently, the collective NDCs in the Paris Agreement still don’t add up to 2 degrees Celsius, according to the experts. Countries will next have the opportunity to increase their commitments from the Paris Agreement at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland, in November 2021.The biggest emitters in the world should take the lead, experts sayExperts say that the U.S., which has the second-largest amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the world now and has been since the Paris Agreement, and other leading emitters should lead the way to reducing emissions.“It’s really difficult to imagine other kind of countries stepping up in terms of ambition and leadership to solve the climate crisis when the U.S. is kind of walking away from this agreement,” Moore said.In addition, Sivaram believes that the U.S. and other Western countries bear a “great historical responsibility” to the world for the Industrial Revolution, which spurred the trend of global warming.“We’re this wealthy country with a large technological and great scientific enterprise,” Moore said. “These are things that we can draw on to really lead the way on crafting this new low carbon economy.”While the U.S. does not bear full responsibility for the climate problem, it can play a central role in helping to mitigate it.During Obama’s presidency, for instance, the U.S. would help to lead negotiations during the annual United Nations Conference of the Parties meetings for ambitious paths going forward, but this stopped once Trump went into office, he added.Obama also assisted in what Sivaram described as a “critical breakthrough” at the 2009 Copenhagen summit that paved the way for a joint commitment by the U.S. and China to make a joint announcement on their intent take solid action on climate change in 2014.Those actions eventually led to the creation of the Paris Agreement, Sivaram said.“So, when the leading emitters sets ambitious goals, that raises the bar for everybody else,” Duffy said.While Obama is credited for leading the charge into the agreement, some have criticized him for failing to implement lasting change in the climate fight. Climate attorney David Bookbinder wrote in Vox in 2017 that Obama’s climate action policies didn’t start until he was re-elected, largely because he was fearful of the political consequences that could follow.Marianne Lavelle, politics reporter for Inside Climate News, agreed, writing in 2016 that all of Obama’s achievements in climate change happened during his second term, describing his first term as “lost territory.”The year he went into office, Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the agreement, describing the pledge that the U.S. made as a “massive redistribution of United States wealth,” that would “undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty [and] impose unacceptable legal risk.”He added that he would be open to re-joining the accord after renegotiating a “deal that’s fair.”Why it pays for the U.S. to focus on climate changeThe economic windfall that could result from the U.S. remaining in the Paris Agreement and doing the work to accomplish its goals could be vast, according to the experts.The U.S. could potentially triple its investment in clean energy innovation and spur a competitive race to the top around the world, therefore driving down the cost of clean energy technologies as well as improving their performance, Sivaram said.A lot of the solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions already exist, but it’s currently too expensive to transition to clean energy as quickly as needed, the experts said,Currently, 40 to 46 of the critical technologies for decarbonizing or reducing emissions to net zero are not on track, Sivaram said. While some, like solar and wind power have gotten dramatically cheaper, others, such as clean fuels for industries or long-distance transportation, the use of hydrogen and the use of digital technologies are still too expensive to implement in an efficient manner.The book Energizing America, which Sivaram co-wrote, forecasts that if the U.S. federal government launches a national energy innovation mission and triples its investment in clean energy innovation to $25 billion by 2025, it will create and sustain one million or more good, long-term jobs in some of these advanced energy industries.The federal government is losing out financially by not putting climate action at the forefront of its agenda, Duffy said.“I believe by not being more ambitious is we’re losing out on the opportunities to develop the solutions and sell them to the rest of the world,” he said.What’s next for international efforts to reduce climate change?The rest of the world is continuing to set ambitious goals to mitigate the rate of global warming without the U.S being on board.Last month, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the country’s new target of economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2060. China, which is the world’s largest emitter with 28% of global greenhouse gases, set its initial goal in the Paris Agreement for its emissions to peak by 2030.“That is an astonishing goal,” Sivaram said. “If China can pull that off it’ll be the most Herculean feat I think we’ve ever seen in the world.”China is also investing more money into low-carbon energy than any other country, Duffy said.India, which experts say could become the world’s number one emitter of carbon dioxide later this century, is exceeding the Paris Agreement targets that it set and could set more ambitious targets in the run-up to the next major climate conference in 2021.The European Union has made an ambitious set of commitments, which includes reducing their emissions by more than half by 2030 and become climate neutral by 2050, Sivaram said.In order to meet the goals of the accord, countries are going to have to be much more ambitious, and the global clean energy transition away from fossil fuels and toward cleaner energy sources, such as renewable energy, will have to be much swifter.“So, around the world, the major emitters, the major economies are taking their own action on climate change, and they don’t particularly care whether or not the United States is in or out,” Sivaram said.Local governments in the U.S. have stepped up to the climate fight in the absence of federal policy in the U.S., such as strict emissions regulations put in place in California, as well as a pledge by California, New York and Michigan to become carbon neutral by 2050.These are moves that will likely reflect on the country as a whole in the eyes of the world, Moore said.Copyright © 2020, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
This paper is the maritime and sub–Antarctic contribution to the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research (SCAR) Past Antarctic Ice Sheet Dynamics (PAIS) community Antarctic Ice Sheet reconstruction. The overarching aim for all sectors of Antarctica was to reconstruct the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) ice sheet extent and thickness, and map the subsequent deglaciation in a series of 5000 year time slices. However, our review of the literature found surprisingly few high quality chronological constraints on changing glacier extents on these timescales in the maritime and sub–Antarctic sector. Therefore, in this paper we focus on an assessment of the terrestrial and offshore evidence for the LGM ice extent, establishing minimum ages for the onset of deglaciation, and separating evidence of deglaciation from LGM limits from those associated with later Holocene glacier fluctuations. Evidence included geomorphological descriptions of glacial landscapes, radiocarbon dated basal peat and lake sediment deposits, cosmogenic isotope ages of glacial features and molecular biological data. We propose a classification of the glacial history of the maritime and sub–Antarctic islands based on this assembled evidence. These include: (Type I) islands which accumulated little or no LGM ice; (Type II) islands with a limited LGM ice extent but evidence of extensive earlier continental shelf glaciations; (Type III) seamounts and volcanoes unlikely to have accumulated significant LGM ice cover; (Type IV) islands on shallow shelves with both terrestrial and submarine evidence of LGM (and/or earlier) ice expansion; (Type V) Islands north of the Antarctic Polar Front with terrestrial evidence of LGM ice expansion; and (Type VI) islands with no data. Finally, we review the climatological and geomorphological settings that separate the glaciological history of the islands within this classification scheme.
THE Oxford Women’s Blues Football team took on Bedford Women’s Firsts on Wednesday afternoon at their home pitches of Marston. After only losses so far this season, the Blues were looking to kick start their season with ‘third-time lucky’ starting this match with renewed determination.The game got off to a slow start with Oxford keeping firm possession of the ball, winning everything in the air and outplaying the opposition. Oxford played well up front, and managed to launch convincing attacks on their opposition’s defence. Despite a number of opportunities on goal, however, Oxford was unable to finish and each attempt ended up in the hands of Bedford’s strong keeper. The first half wound down with the Oxford side looking anxious. No doubt the memory of their two prior losses was still stinging, and the Bedford team, who responded well despite the home side’s pressure, was going to be hard to beat.Bedford came out strong in the second half, having a breakaway opportunity at goal, but the Blues’ talented keeper Stephanie McGowan shut down any hope Bedford had of scoring, and asserted her dominating presence in goal. The Blues, a bit shaken, mustered their spirits and begin pushing hard for that goal that had so far evaded them. Finally, ten minutes into the second half, Worcester fresher Lucie Bowden cleaned up a powerfully shot ball from left wing Sarah Rouse that the Bedford keeper had fumbled. Bowden’s effort gave Oxford their first and much needed goal of the season, spurring the Blues to new efforts and putting victory in their sights. With the scoring drought finally ended, Oxford found form and intensified the pressure on Bedford. At last, the the goals started to flow. In the last twenty-five minutes of the match, the Oxford women saw two more goals from visiting student Brett Burns, which were powerfully struck from outside the penalty box. The expert placing of the shots left Bedford’s keeper without any hope of redeeming the scoreline. Although Bedford countered with good pressure and fresh players tested the Blues’ fitness towards the end of the game, Oxford held strong, determined to redeem the disappointment of a bad start to the season. The display of skill and composure showed by Oxford during the match more than accomplished this aspiration, and should give the team the confidence to build on this performance for further victories.
After studying U.S. energy innovation for three years, Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) researchers recommended Tuesday nearly doubling research and development spending and pushing private industry to adopt new technology by putting a price on carbon emissions.The report, “Transforming U.S. Energy Innovation,” was released by the Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group in the Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. It stemmed at least partly from surveys of U.S. businesses involved in energy innovation and of 100 experts on energy technology. The surveys sought to identify promising areas of energy innovation and the best strategies to promote their adoption by private industry.The report contains dozens of findings and recommendations in four key areas: investing in federal energy research, promoting adoption of energy innovations by the private sector, managing federal energy research institutions, and strengthening partnerships with other countries.The pressures of global climate change mean that the transition to cleaner energy has to occur more rapidly than past conversions, said Associate Professor of Public Policy Matthew Bunn.The report said that an energy revolution is needed to reduce U.S. and world reliance on fossil fuels and move toward a clean energy economy. That revolution is needed because of environmental factors, including human-caused climate change, national security considerations — driven by the fact that so much fuel comes from volatile parts of the world — and concerns about future economic competitiveness in the multitrillion dollar clean energy market.Associate Professor of Public Policy Matthew Bunn, one of the report’s authors, said the pressures of global climate change mean that the transition to cleaner energy has to occur more rapidly than past conversions.“Fundamentally, we have a huge challenge before us,” Bunn said at a Washington, D.C., news conference to release the report. “The past transitions of this kind have taken decades. But we just don’t have that kind of time.”Researchers found that a dramatic increase in U.S. spending on energy research, development, and demonstration would repay itself many times over, and they recommended roughly doubling spending, to $10 billion annually.At the news conference, Bunn acknowledged that such an increase would be a tall order as the government struggles to reduce spending and cut federal deficits. Still, he argued that the payback would be enormous, not just from energy efficiency savings, but also because U.S. businesses will be able to market the new energy technologies globally. Funding sources also could be found that don’t increase the deficit, Bunn said. For example, in the past, a charge levied on natural gas was dedicated to research, resulting in major advances for the industry.The report recommends investing in a broad portfolio of technologies, but most heavily in four main areas: energy storage, bioenergy, efficient buildings, and solar photovoltaics.For the investment to pay off, however, industry has to be prodded to adopt the new technologies that result. That can be accomplished by putting a price on carbon emissions, setting strict clean-energy standards, or making regulatory changes that create market pressure to adopt or develop energy innovations.The report acknowledges that the private sector is a key player in the effort, given that most of the country’s energy system is in private hands. The report also encourages the government to support private technology demonstration projects.In addition, the report recommends reforming how the United States manages its national laboratories in order to maximize innovation, and it also backs supporting a suite of programs to promote innovative ideas and products at all development stages.