On December 12th, Canada said it would become the first country to excuse itself from the Kyoto Protocol. What they really should have said is that Canada decided to double down on its investment in tar sands. According to the government of Alberta "Royalties from the oil sands ($1.9 billion in 2009-10) -- Albertans' share of the revenues from oil sands production - help fund many public programs and services, including infrastructure, health and education. According to CERI, Alberta can expect $184 billion in royalties over the next 25 years."
The announcement comes on the heels of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban which brought together representatives of the world's governments, international organizations and civil society.
Earlier this year, the U.S. government put out over $6 billion in loan guarantees to catalyze banks to fund renewable energy in the United States. The U.S. was buoyant about the investment and then worried after the Solyndra failure only to be redeemed by the by First Solar and Solar City financings without the loan guarantee.
So, what do these two have to do with each other?
One is a country making a short-term investment in energy in tar sands, another making a long term bet on renewable energy. But, each is a country making an investment in energy.
Back to Durban, where out of that conference, was a 194-party agreement to start negotiations on a new accord that would ensure that countries will be legally bound to carry out any pledges they make. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest. These pledges would be countries implementing policy -- not investments to manage the environment.
But, also revealed at Durban was that more than $1 trillion has been invested thus far in renewable energy by the private sector according to Bloomberg. So, nations are racing to get their policies ready to accept the next $1 trillion into clean energy solutions.
According to Bloomberg, $52 billion was invested in clean energy in 2004 and $243 billion was invested in 2010. At a 29 percent compound growth rate, the next trillion could be achieved in less than three years -- not a lot of time for Canada to change its mind.
Entrepreneurs are equipped and ready to take risk and grow the business models to deploy solutions to our global energy needs.
Nations like the U.S. and Canada are inept investors and entrepreneurs. But they do set the tone and attitude of their nation. In this case, the U.S. is looking towards the future while Canada is looking to its past. In the end, we need a level playing field upon which the best market driven solutions for energy can scale to meet the needs of our population -- providing comfort the next $1 trillion chasing climate change solutions.
But nations should stop picking winners -- it sells us short on meeting our energy demands in the face of climate change.
“We fully assumed there would be federal climate legislation so we could go to the state to recover our half of the costs,†says Pat Hemlepp, a spokesman for AEP. “But because there were no rules in place, we had to cancel.â€
AEP is not alone. Major electric producers from the upper Midwest to the Deep South have cancelled carbon-capture projects in the past year even though they would have been half-financed with government grants. Meanwhile, the $1 billion government investment in FutureGen, an experimental plant resuscitated by the Obama administration and to explore next-generation carbon capture technology, is still on the drawing boards. The administration awarded the grant to a group of firms that promised to locate the facility in Obama’s home state of Illinois, which won out over a rival Texas bid.
The level of taxpayer cash poured into cancelled projects – aimed at developing cutting-edge technology and reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- is not trivial. AEP, for instance, used at least $22 million in government grant money to develop the plans, which have now been shelved. While that project financed with government stimulus funds created 67 jobs, according to company filings posted on a government website, cancellation of the facility, which was slated to come on line in 2015, ended hopes for 800 multi-year construction jobs and 30 permanent jobs.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/09/29/Clean-Coal-Lost-Jobs-Wasted-Money-as-Feds-Dither.aspx#page1
the big assertions
1) "the U.S. is looking towards the future while Canada is looking to its past" - Canada gets 50%+ from renewable sources. We get 4%. We have a long way to go to even catch up to their past.
2) "Entrepreneurs are equipped and ready to take risk and grow the business models to deploy solutions to our global energy needs. " Really? The renewable industry had 30 years and "more than $1 trillion ... " to create one technology that can compete in generation or automotive. Score to date - Fossil 3 : Clean Renewable 0. We built a nuclear bomb from scratch in 3 years with the government in charge. The government (DOD / NASA) gave birth to modern communications (DSP), the computer, most medical scanning technologies, satellites, etc. and the list goes on and on. Private industry post 1930????
3) "But nations should stop picking winners -- it sells us short on meeting our energy demands in the face of climate change." Right the US gov should stop picking winners and start CREATING them because private investors and entrepreneurs certainly are NOT doing that.
4) "redeemed by the by First Solar and Solar City financings without the loan guarantee" I guess the $.77 cents per KWh (EIA) of solar subsidies was enough for the loan without further capital reduction by DOE guarantee. Makes one wonder why we allocated that money to project guarantees rather than research????
Meanwhile real, everyday Germans, Italians, Czechs, Canadians (in Ontario) and residents of 40 other regions all get monthly checks for producing clean, non-deadly power right on their rooftops, right where the power is needed, power they generate at the same or lower cost than Big Solar owned by BP and Goldman Sachs.
We are a nation of investors and entrepreneurs - why are we being locked out of the SURE THING that generous feed in tariffs offer - improved property values, improved local economies, more and better jobs, stronger democracy, less monopoly, local reliable power with lower GHG emissions than Big Solar and Big Transmission, no dead wilderness, etc. - and instead being saddled with dead ecosystems and Big Energy boondoggles?
Meanwhile nukes get 500M$ per reactor per years, coal even more, oil trillion dollars wars, and you think green energy gets the big bucks. wow.
Rooftop solar is less than nukes.
Wind and waste bio char as half that.
Efficiency is 1/4 of nukes.
Rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char are 24/7 cheaper than nukes, forever, clean safe, carbon land and water negative. Why do you doubt it?
Why a positive energy future could be closer than you think
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/energy/biofuels-thinking-outside-the-barrel.html