October, 28 2015, 11:30am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Gaelle Gourmelon, Communications Director
Phone: +1 (202) 745-8092 x 510
E-mail: ggourmelon@worldwatch.org
First-Ever Sustainable Energy Roadmap for the Caribbean Launched
WASHINGTON
The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has receivedrecommendations for reaching an ambitious regional target of 48% renewable energy generation by 2027. The Caribbean Sustainable Energy Roadmap and Strategy (C-SERMS) Baseline Report and Assessment, released today by the Worldwatch Institute, also suggests a 33% reduction in the region's energy intensity. Achieving these sustainable energy goals would result in a 46% decrease in carbon dioxide emissions over the period. The report details a work program of Priority Initiatives, Policies, Projects, and Activities (PIPPAs) as concrete steps for achieving these ambitious but feasible objectives. Supporting the full report are two slide decks visualizing the report's main findings as well as the energy situations of individual CARICOM Member States.
"A month before the milestone United Nations climate summit in Paris, and on the day of the launch of the Caribbean Center for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, this report leads the way for CARICOM and its Member States to become global sustainable energy leaders," says Alexander Ochs, Director of Climate and Energy at Worldwatch and lead author of the report. "We were extremely excited two years ago when CARICOM Member States reviewed an early draft of this report at a Meeting of Energy Ministers and agreed on the preliminary goal of a 48% renewable electricity share. Today's updated and extended report adds energy efficiency and climate mitigation to the equation and is accessible to anyone in the region. It provides the analysis and tools necessary to realize the vision of an economically and environmentally sustainable Caribbean region.
Caribbean governments are increasingly aware of the enormous financial, environmental, and social costs associated with continued dependence on fossil fuels. Only one CARICOM Member State, Trinidad and Tobago, has substantial fossil fuel resources of its own. All others spend sizable shares of their gross domestic product-including at least a quarter of GDP in Guyana and Montserrat-on imported petroleum products. In Jamaica, the cost of electricity is four times that in the United States. And in Haiti and Suriname, large portions of the population still lack access to modern energy services.
These and other concerns have spurred a broad regional dialogue on improving energy security and independence, fostering sustainable economic growth, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the development and efficient use of local and renewable resources. CARICOM has aimed to provide guidance and support for Member States that are willing to transition to more sustainable energy systems. In 2013, the region reached a milestone when it adopted a regional energy policy--- CARICOM's first region-wide agreement on joint energy goals--- that included the preliminary 48% renewables target. This commitment has since been lauded by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.
"C-SERMS is pivotal to the attainment of the sustainable energy and development goals of the Caribbean Community. CARICOM envisions that implementing the C-SERMS Baseline Report and Assessment advances regional goals whilst simultaneously supporting Member States," says Devon Gardner, Program Manager for Energy in the CARICOM Secretariat and Head of the CARICOM Energy Unit. "All CARICOM Members have contributed to this Roadmap and the CARICOM Secretariat is excited to have this first in a series of assessments, which will provide guidance on the vision and strategy for building resilient energy systems within the region."
Established in 1973, CARICOM is a regional organization representing 15 Member States: Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago. Despite their diversity, CARICOM Member States, with a total population of over 17 million people, face many shared energy challenges.
For most Caribbean states, inefficient transmission and distribution networks, geographic remoteness, and steep topography increase the high costs of energy systems that rely on fuel imports. The loss of large shares of GDP to energy imports diverts large sums that otherwise could be invested domestically. As a consequence, national debts rise at the expense of a country's financial ratings, and high electricity tariffs discourage economic development and foreign investment well beyond the energy sector. Additionally, all CARICOM Member States share a particular vulnerability to the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of climate change, caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels. Impacts include sea-level rise, water scarcity, coral bleaching, and increased strength and frequency of tropical storms.
"Caribbean countries are, and increasingly will be, affected greatly by the negative consequences of global climate change," says Ochs. "They have a strong incentive to demonstrate to other countries that it is possible to reduce climate-altering emissions quickly. But even if the problem of global warming did not exist, and the burning of fossil fuels did not result in extensive local air and water pollution, CARICOM Member States would still have a mandate to transition away from these fuels as swiftly as possible, for reasons of social opportunity, economic competitiveness, and national security. They owe it to their people."
Significant renewable energy resources exist across the CARICOM region and have yet to be fully harnessed, including biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, waste-to-energy, and wind. There are also tremendous opportunities to dramatically improve energy efficiency. However, realizing these sustainable energy potentials in the region will require a robust and dynamic framework of policy and legislation that, so far, remains inadequate. Although all CARICOM Member States have national energy strategies in some stage of development or implementation, most of these lack a coherent long-term vision and concrete policies and measures. Efforts so far have been disjointed and incomplete, and they face a variety of technical, financial, institutional, and capacity barriers.
The C-SERMS Baseline Report and Assessment aims to serve as a key planning tool for tackling existing barriers and communicating priorities that allow for a swift transition toward sustainable energy systems in CARICOM Member States. Suggested PIPPAs range from coordinated regional fuel efficiency standards and targeted model legislation on net metering, to the development of regional generation technology risk mitigation funds and country-specific electric system modelling efforts. The report distinguishes actions to be taken at the regional or national levels, or both, and specifies the required timeframes. It also highlights three broad priority areas for future action: transportation, regional energy trade agreements, and the water-energy-food nexus.
"Sustainable, reliable, and affordable energy can be provided throughout the Caribbean, and this report helps us see how," says Andreas Taeuber, leader of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technical Assistance (REETA) project, which supports the CARICOM Energy Unit in fulfilling its political mandate. REETA is a project of the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), which has supported the C-SERMS project and its Baseline Report from its inception. The Inter-American Development Bank also provided support for the project.
"Through regional collaboration, CARICOM Member States have a tremendous opportunity to spearhead sustainable energy development region-wide," says Gardner. "Full transformation of the region's energy sector will be a long-term process, requiring extensive and dedicated collaboration among Member States as well as regional and international actors. The regional approach outlined by C-SERMS ensures that no Member State will travel this path alone, but instead will be supported by a network of actors and institutions, united under a common vision for sustainability."
The C-SERMS Baseline Report and Assessment is the latest outcome of Worldwatch's longstanding and intensive engagement in the Caribbean and Central America. The Institute also recently published national sustainable energy roadmaps for the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Jamaica, as well as regional studies of Central America and Latin America and the Caribbean.
The Worldwatch Institute was a globally focused environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C., founded by Lester R. Brown. Worldwatch was named as one of the top ten sustainable development research organizations by Globescan Survey of Sustainability Experts. Brown left to found the Earth Policy Institute in 2000. The Institute was wound up in 2017, after publication of its last State of the World Report. Worldwatch.org was unreachable from mid-2019.
LATEST NEWS
'A National Disgrace': 19 States to Raise Minimum Wage But Federal Rate Stuck at $7.25
One Fair Wage noted that "tipped workers can still legally be paid as little as $2.13 an hour, a system advocates describe as a direct legacy of slavery."
Dec 31, 2025
Over a third of US states are set to raise their minimum hourly wage in 2026, but worker advocates including Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday decried a federal minimum wage that's remained at $7.25 since 2009—and just $2.13 an hour for tipped workers for over three decades.
Minimum wage hikes are set to go into effect in 19 states on Thursday: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
Increases range from 28 cents in Minnesota to $2 in Hawaii, with an average hike of 67 cents across all 19 states. More than 8.3 million workers will benefit from the increases, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). The mean minimum wage in those 19 states will rise to $14.57 in 2026, up from $13.90 this year.
Three more states—Alaska, Florida, and Oregon—plus Washington, DC are scheduled to raise their minimum wages later in 2026.
In addition to the state hikes, nearly 50 counties and municipalities plan to raise their minimum wages in the coming year, according to the National Employment Law Project (NELP). These include San Diego, California—where the minimum wage for hospitality workers is set to rise to $25 an hour by 2030—and Portland, Maine, where all workers will earn at least $19 by 2028.
However, the federal minimum wage remains at $7.25, and the subminimum rate for tipped workers is $2.13, where it's been since 1991—and has lost more than half its purchasing power since then.
The federal minimum wage has stayed at $7.25 since 2009. In 2026, workers in 19 states and 49 cities and counties an increase. Alabama’s rate will stay at $7.25. 🔗 https://t.co/mrGfPAKba3 pic.twitter.com/EsokVIc6KP
— AL.com (@aldotcom) December 31, 2025
"Tipped workers can still legally be paid as little as $2.13 an hour, a system advocates describe as a direct legacy of slavery," the advocacy group One Fair Wage (OFW) said in a statement Tuesday.
Sanders (I-Vt.) said on social media on the eve of the hikes: "Congratulations to the 19 states raising the minimum wage in 2026. But let’s be clear: A $7.25 federal minimum wage is a national disgrace. No one who works full time should live in poverty. We must keep fighting to guarantee all workers a living wage—not starvation wages."
Yannet Lathrop, NELP's senior researcher and policy analyst, said earlier this month that "the upcoming minimum wage increases are incremental and won’t magically turn severely underpaid jobs into living-wage jobs, but they do offer a bit of relief at a time when every dollar matters for people."
“The bigger picture is that raising the minimum wage is just one piece of a much larger fight for a good jobs economy rooted in living wages and good benefits for every working person," Lathrop added. "That’s where we need to get to."
Numerous experts note that neither $7.25, nor even $15 an hour, is a livable wage anywhere in the United States.
"The gap between wages and real living costs is stark," OFW said. "According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, there is no county in the United States where a worker can afford to meet basic needs on less than $25 an hour. Even in the nation’s least expensive counties, a worker with one child would need at least $33 an hour to cover essentials like rent, food, childcare, and transportation."
"Advocates argue that policies like President [Donald] Trump’s 'no tax on tips' proposal fail to address the underlying problem of poverty wages," OFW continued. "While the policy has drawn attention, they say it is a headline rather than a solution, particularly since nearly two-thirds of tipped workers do not earn enough to owe federal income taxes."
Frustrated by the long-unchanged $7.25 federal minimum wage, numerous states in recent years have let voters give themselves raises via ballot initiatives. Such measures have been successful even in some red states, including Missouri and Nebraska.
Rising minimum wages are a legacy of the union-backed #FightFor15 movement that began among striking fast-food workers in 2012. At least 20 states now have minimum wages of $15 or higher.
However, back then, "the buying power of a $15 minimum wage was substantially higher than it is today," EPI noted. "In 2025, a $15 minimum wage does not achieve economic security for working people in most of the country. This is particularly true in the highest cost-of-living cities."
In April, US senators voted down an amendment that would have raised the federal minimum wage to $17 an hour. Every Democratic and Independent upper chamber lawmaker voted in favor of the measure, while all Republicans except Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) rejected it.
As Trump administration and Republican policies and practices—such as passing healthcare legislation that does not include an extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits, which are set to expire on Wednesday and send premiums soaring—coupled with persistently high living costs squeeze workers, advocates say a living wage is more important than ever.
The issue is underscored by glaring income and wealth inequality in the US, as well as a roughly 285:1 CEO to worker pay gap among S&P 500 companies last year.
"Minimum wage doesn't cover the cost of living," Janae van De Kerk, an organizer with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Airport Workers union and Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport employee, said in a video posted Tuesday on social media.
"Minimum wage doesn't cover the cost of living. Many of my co-workers have to choose between food on the table or health insurance" Janae, Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport service worker No one should have to make that choice.
[image or embed]
— Airport Workers United (@goodairports.bsky.social) December 30, 2025 at 10:34 AM
"Many of my co-workers have to choose between food on the table or health insurance, or the choice between having food and paying the electric bill," van De Kerk—who advocates a $25 hourly minimum wage—continued.
"We shouldn't have to worry about those things," she added. "We shouldn't have to stress about those things. We're willing to work and we wanna work, and we should be paid for our work."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Says National Guard to Leave Chicago, LA, and Portland, But 'Will Come Back'
Accusing "a president desperate to be king" of using troops "as political pawns," California's attorney general noted the announcement followed "a stinging rebuke by the Supreme Court."
Dec 31, 2025
After a series of losses in court, President Donald Trump ended 2025 with an announcement that he is pulling the plug on legally contested National Guard deployments in three major US cities—but he also pledged that troops will return in the new year.
Trump initially sent thousands of California National Guard members to Los Angeles in June amid protests against his violent immigration operations. The remaining troops left the city earlier this month in response to a pair of orders from a district judge and the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The president also tried to deploy National Guard members to the streets of two other Democrat-led cities—Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, Illinois—but those moves were blocked by lawsuits, including one that produced a US Supreme Court decision last week.
Throughout the president's push to deploy troops to these and other cities, he has circulated lies about crime rates. He did so again in the Wednesday announcement on his Truth Social platform, writing, "We are removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, despite the fact that CRIME has been greatly reduced by having these great Patriots in those cities, and ONLY by that fact."
"Portland, Los Angeles, and Chicago were GONE if it weren’t for the Federal Government stepping in," Trump claimed. "We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again - Only a question of time! It is hard to believe that these Democrat Mayors and Governors, all of whom are greatly incompetent, would want us to leave, especially considering the great progress that has been made???"
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat expected to run for president in 2028, said on social media Wednesday that it is "about time Donald Trump admitted defeat. We've said it from day one: The federal takeover of California's National Guard is illegal."
Newsom and the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, challenged the LA deployment. In that case, the US Department of Justice on Tuesday filed a brief with the 9th Circuit withdrawing its motion to keep the California troops under federal control.
"For six months, CA National Guard troops have been used as political pawns by a president desperate to be king," Bonta said Wednesday. "Now, in the face of a stinging rebuke by the Supreme Court, the Trump administration is backing away from its effort to federalize and deploy CA National Guard troops."
Although that Supreme Court decision was not directly about California, the justices' rejection of the Trump administration's request to strike down a temporary restraining order that barred the Illinois deployment was expected to inform other cases.
Trump federalized Illinois and Texas national guard troops to patrol in Chicago, but Illinois quickly sued and won a court ruling keeping them out of the city. The troops did training exercises instead. Today, Trump claims that the guard "greatly reduced" crime in Chicago. Did they do it remotely?
[image or embed]
— Mark Jacob (@markjacob.bsky.social) December 31, 2025 at 4:24 PM
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another Democrat who may run for the Oval Office in the next cycle, also pointed to the recent ruling in his response to the president on Wednesday: "Donald Trump's lying again. He lost in court when Illinois stood up against his attempt to militarize American cities with the National Guard. Now Trump is forced to stand down."
"Illinois and Chicago have reduced crime with smart investments in police and community violence reduction programs," he continued. "Meanwhile, Trump cut federal support for both. No matter how many lies he tells, we will keep standing up for truth and against his abuse of power."
Ahead of Trump's announcement, the New Republic's Greg Sargent said that the president and his deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, "are actually failing in crucial ways. Deportations are lagging behind their goals, courts are mostly functioning, and their fascist, ethnonationalist cruelties have unleashed a countermobilization of unexpected scope and power."
After the new Truth Social post, Sargent added: "Trump just announced that he's pulling the National Guard out of Chicago, LA, and Portland while pretending he won some kind of big victory. Here's the reality: Their authoritarian designs have faced massive civil and popular resistance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Year's Eve Dump: House Releases Video and Transcript of Jack Smith Deposition
"There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case," Smith told members of the House Judiciary Committee.
Dec 31, 2025
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday released both the transcript and video of former special counsel Jack Smith's December 17 testimony about his criminal cases against President Donald Trump that were shut down last year after Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
The release, which occurred as millions of Americans were preparing to celebrate New Year's Eve, revealed fresh insights into Smith's investigation and prosecution of the president, who had been indicted on charges related to the unlawful retention of top-secret government documents and his bid to illegally remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election.
Among other things, Smith testified that he believed that Trump's false claims about fraud in the 2020 election were not protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution because they were aimed at disrupting the certification of the election results on January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters violently stormed the US Capitol building and send lawmakers fleeing for their lives.
"There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case," Smith emphasized. "As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use... knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function."
Smith also testified that he and his team sought gag orders against Trump because the then-former president "was making statements that were endangering witnesses, intimidating witnesses, endangering members of my staff, endangering court staff."
Smith also said that he would "make no apologies" for requesting a gag order against Trump.
When asked about his decision to subpoena phone records of US senators during his investigation, Smith laid out why Trump had left him with no other option.
"I think who should be accountable for this is Donald Trump," he said. "These records are people, in the case of the senators, Donald Trump directed his co-conspirators to call these people to further delay the proceedings. He chose to do that. If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic senators, we would have gotten toll records for Democratic senators. So responsibility for why these records, why we collected them... that lies with Donald Trump."
Commenting on the timing of the release, New York University law professor Ryan Goodman called it "an obvious attempt" by House Republicans to "bury" the information that Smith delivered during his testimony.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular



