Renewable Energy on The Huffington Post

Ben Larson: If Done Right, Biomass Energy Could Help Combat Global Warming

2009-12-22T16:29:01Z

Jeff Gibbs is right to be concerned about using trees and "woody" biomass for renewable electricity. As he correctly points out, timber harvesting too often is destructive, and we need to save some dead trees and limbs to recycle nutrients and feed the soil and forest ecosystem.

That said, Gibbs jumps to the mistaken conclusion that biomass can never be worthwhile. In fact, there is a consensus among the scientists Gibbs cites that burning numerous types of biomass can reduce net carbon emissions. These types of biomass include:

Sustainably harvested forest residues, such as the limbs left after logging, which would emit a significant fraction of their carbon upon decay;

energy crops that don't crowd out food production, such as switchgrass planted on marginal lands;

farm wastes, such as manure and crop residues; and

municipal and industrial wastes.

Leading scientists agree that burning these types of biomass would not add to atmospheric carbon levels and thus would not contribute to global warming. In fact, because these low-carbon biomass sources often displace high-carbon coal, they can reduce carbon emissions significantly.

In addition to starting with the most beneficial biomass resources, we also need to ensure that we harvest woody biomass sustainably without degrading forests. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is pressing Congress to ensure that federal policies protect critical lands, such as wilderness areas, and establish standards that prevent degradation of wildlife habitat, enhance soil productivity, and protect biodiversity when biomass is harvested.

To try to make his case, Gibbs cherry-picks the data. He cites the worst case scenario in which biomass use and agricultural expansion destroy forests. Many of the same scientists who came up with that scenario -- which they concede is extreme -- also posit another scenario in which biomass use could jump 800 percent from today's levels, make a major contribution to curbing global warming, and increase forested land at the same time. With the right policies, we can, in fact, develop beneficial biomass resources and protect forests.

Finally, besides his miscalculation of biomass' value, Gibbs erroneously dismisses the contribution that solar, wind and other renewables could make today to reliably power the grid and cut global warming pollution. Numerous assessments by the Department of Energy (DOE) and other credible agencies and organizations demonstrate that renewable energy sources are ready today to make a significant contribution. A 2008 DOE study, for example, found that wind power could provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity by 2030 with no adverse impact on reliability or the need for storage. In addition, UCS's 2009 Climate 2030 Blueprint found that if the United States adopted a suite of smart climate, energy-efficiency and renewable-energy policies, wind, solar, geothermal and biomass could provide 40 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030 and reduce electric bills across the country.

Ben Larson works on biomass policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Steven Cohen: Climate Policy and Sustainability Management

2009-12-21T10:33:22Z

The issues that emerged at the Copenhagen climate conference served to remind us of the difficulty of solving complicated cross-national environmental problems. Ever since Rachel Carson and Barry Commoner first popularized the idea of a single interconnected biosphere, it's been obvious that national sovereignty would make it difficult to solve some global environmental problems. The climate problem is even more difficult than most since its causes are everywhere and its impacts mainly in the future. It is becoming clear that the U.N.-dominated climate negotiation process is coming to an end, to be replaced by bilateral and multilateral negotiations among the two dozen or so major emitters of greenhouse gases.

This does not mean that the processes that first led to the Kyoto Accords and then the Copenhagen conference should be seen as failures. The world received a crash course in climate science and policy in the past few weeks, and the conference created a venue and deadline that accelerated the negotiation process. However, while climate is a critical issue, it is not the only sustainability issue we need to address. I think it's time to broaden our focus.

The idea that the nations of the world would cede sovereignty over their economies to permit a global greenhouse gas cap-and-trade policy was misguided fantasy that is hopefully now laid to rest. So how do we move forward? The most obvious next step is to view the climate issue as only a part of the broader issue of global sustainability. We need to understand that the planet's environmental health will only be maintained when people begin to understand its connection to sustainable economic development.

In some respects, the climate issue and the debate over emissions have been the world's first major exposure to the centrality of this connection. Unfortunately the lesson seems to be that the price of economic growth is a warmer planet. This is a slightly modified version of the old lesson that we can't have economic growth without poisoning the planet, whether through pollution, nuclear waste, or other environmental hazards. The problem with this thinking is that it fails to recognize the economic importance of the biosphere. We need a well-functioning biosphere to generate wealth, and when we damage that system, the price of repairing that damage is inevitably far greater than it would have been if we had managed to avoid damaging it in the first place. The key word here is management.

If we are to achieve worldwide economic development while maintaining a functioning, healthy biosphere, we must learn to control the impact of our activities on the planet. We need to learn to efficiently distribute, process and use water. Sewage and other waste must be cleaned before it is returned to our rivers, lakes and oceans. Food must be mass produced yet the land must retain the capacity for regrowth and regeneration. Our energy supply must be based on the virtually limitless source of the sun. The bottom line is that we must become more conscious of and careful with the complex web of life that supports the existence of species other than our own.

To accomplish all of these tasks, we must dramatically improve our understanding of this planet and the impact of our actions on its biosphere. The first step in developing the technology of sustainability is to develop the means of measuring the health of the planet in all of its intricate dimensions. Measurement is a critical element of management. If you can't measure something, you can't manage it, because without measurement, you cannot tell if your management is making conditions better or worse. The specific measures of the planet's conditions will help us identify problems and begin to work toward solutions. The goal of sustainability is nothing less than planetary management, and that is an audacious goal that we are a long way from achieving.

Climate change is among the first of the problems of planetary health that we have been able to identify. Measures of temperature, CO2 concentrations, melting of polar ice and sea level rise have all been used to define the dimensions of this problem. We know there is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we know where it comes from and we know that it is warming the planet. What we don't know is the impact this warming will have or the best ways to adapt.

The most fundamental technical challenge is sustainable, fossil fuel-free energy. Today, renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels. We need new technology to rebalance that equation if we are to shift away from fossil fuels. Many wonder if that will ever happen. The cost of renewable energy, solar and wind power, and battery storage will almost certainly come down as we develop the technology to promote and implement them in our everyday lives.

Sometimes national security drives the development of technology; sometimes it is public health. Laptops and the internet were products of American defense and space programs. London developed sewers and indoor plumbing to prevent the spread of disease. New York developed a hugely expensive water supply and transport system because local sources were polluted. I'm sure that at the time, someone was saying, "Do you know how expensive this indoor plumbing will be? We will all go broke installing these pipes and pumps everywhere..."

The field of sustainability management must take center stage if globalization is to succeed in promoting efficiency and economic well-being. We have an enormous amount of work to do if we are to learn, analyze, strategize, and govern effectively. Scientists, organizational managers and even politicians must learn to deal with the complexities of the world we now live in. The noise and symbolic politics of Copenhagen may, for some, be a cause for despair. Nevertheless, it was an important step in a process that has been underway for years, yet will take decades to "complete." So let's not get distracted by the noise and just get back to work.

Tom Friedman: Saving The Planet Through An Earth Race

2009-12-21T08:13:47Z

Still, I am an Earth Race guy. I believe that averting catastrophic climate change is a huge scale issue. The only engine big enough to impact Mother Nature is Father Greed: the Market. Only a market, shaped by regulations and incentives to stimulate massive innovation in clean, emission-free power sources can make a dent in global warming. And no market can do that better than America's.

Rhone Resch: Sun Shining Brighter in Copenhagen

2009-12-18T08:17:28Z

What is apparent during the time we've been here in Copenhagen representing the U.S. solar industry is that the renewable energy industry has become a force in the climate debate. No longer are we relying on the environmental community to carry our message (which they have done well in the past). This is the first Conference of Parties where the "solution industries" (renewable energy) outweighed the "emitters" (fossil fuel) both in numbers and in influence.

This is the first time in the history of climate negotiations that the global solar industry has gathered together with one voice. And our message was clear - we are ready now to help solve the climate crisis.

As I listened to heads of state today talk about their commitment to battling climate change, almost to a person, they each talked about solar energy. Countries from Trinidad and Tobago to France to Croatia all stated that they can and will deploy solar as part of their climate solution. And this message is the same opinion that exists back in the U.S., with over 90 percent of the public stating that we need to use more solar energy on our homes and businesses. And the good news is that the solar industry is ready now to deploy quickly as a significant part of the solution, with the rights policies in place.

The Obama Administration took a positive step yesterday when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced U.S. willingness to contribute to a global effort to finance $100 billion annually by 2020 to address climate change mitigation and adaptation, a large part of which will be deployment of solar energy.

The commitment to financing climate change mitigation can start at home. As you can see in the chart below, fossil fuels - a developed, mature industry that has received decades of government support - received $72 billion in total federal subsidies from 2002 to 2008. During the same period, solar energy received less than $2 billion. This inconsistency, both with public opinion and global need, must reverse itself immediately.

The solar industry cannot deploy with the necessary speed to combat climate change without access to markets and a fair competitive environment. Climate negotiators need to return to their respective countries to continue their work by enacting smart policies at the national level. For the U.S., those policies are outlined in the Solar Bill of Rights (http://www.solarbillofrights.com). When we return home and sleep off our jet lag, we will get right back to the business of working with the Administration and Congress to move forward with policies that open up markets to solar and create much-needed jobs in the clean energy economy.

Wyoming Wind Energy Recommendations Get More Time For Public Comment

2009-12-17T09:23:40Z

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is extending the deadline for public comment on its proposed recommendations for protecting wildlife from wind energy development.

The department released the draft document in November to provide guidance for wind developers seeking state permits.

Brian Keane: Generation Wins SmartPower's Energy Smart Ad Challenge

2009-12-16T17:22:05Z

SmartPower has announced the winner of our $10,000 Energy Smart Ad Challenge, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. We called out to filmmakers around the country, challenging them to create what they think is the best 30-second video ad that compels young people to save energy.

The winning video, Generation does just that. It's a moving, memorable and informative ad created by 22-year-old Yale graduate, Alexander Dominitz.

SmartPower and the U.S. Department of Energy congratulate Mr. Dominitz for his excellent work.

You can view all the Top 10 videos from the Energy Smart Ad Challenge at www.YouTube.com/SmartPower.

Let's Get Energy Smart!

David Doniger: Two Moves by the U.S. and China That Could Unlock the Copenhagen Chess Game

2009-12-16T12:39:45Z

The Copenhagen climate summit is coming to its moment of truth, and all eyes will be on the United States and China. Together these two countries account for 42 percent of world CO2 emissions. One is responsible for the largest share of past emissions; the other for the largest share of future emissions. Other nations, both developed and developing, are looking to them for leadership. If China and the U.S. play their parts, we can forge the global consensus needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Both the U.S. and China deserve credit for making significant moves this year to tackle the threat of global warming. But to unlock the global agreement here in Copenhagen, each needs to take another step. And these steps offer each country opportunity and advantage.

In the past year, both countries have made unprecedented investments in green energy and clean technology. China has enacted incentives for wind power, solar panels, efficient appliances, and efficient factories, reaching scales that are driving down clean energy prices worldwide. After years of denial, the U.S. has embraced the science and started curbing CO2 under its Clean Air Act. At the same time, the president is working with Congress on new legislation that will cap and cut U.S. emissions every year, reaching an 83 percent reduction by 2050, and expanding standards and incentives for energy efficiency and renewable power.

In November, both countries offered significant emission reduction targets on the eve of the summit. Naturally, their targets are expressed in different forms and reflect each country's different circumstances. The U.S. proposes to cap and cuts its greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, the target in legislation that has passed the U.S. House of Representatives. China proposes to slow its emissions growth by improving its carbon intensity (energy-related CO2 emissions divided by GDP) by 40-45 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. China has also committed to produce 15 percent of its primary energy from non-fossil energy sources by 2020, and to reforest 100 million acres.

But the U.S. and China each need to do one more thing to give one another, and rest of the world, the confidence to move forward in Copenhagen:

U.S. leadership to help the world's most vulnerable -- The U.S. has the opportunity to help the world's poorest and most vulnerable people survive the impacts of global warming and to help countries protect their endangered tropical forests. The U.S. has committed to pay its share of a $30 billion "fast start" fund to last through 2012. But to lead in Copenhagen, the U.S. needs to back even larger investments to meet these core needs for the longer-term -- 2015 or 2020. The U.S. also needs to subject these commitments to reporting and review.

There are those in the U.S. who oppose helping poor and vulnerable people abroad, especially given America's own economic difficulties. But the U.S. also has a long tradition of helping others, and America's emissions have impacts that confer responsibilities. These investments will pay big returns -- enhancing America's security, opening opportunities for American businesses and workers, and restoring our standing in the world community.

Chinese leadership in transparency and performance -- China has the opportunity to enhance its standing as a responsible world leader by building global confidence in the implementation of its carbon reduction goals. China is making its target domestically enforceable and has been building effective institutions for implementing its energy and climate targets. China has pledged to report its performance to the world, and China and the U.S. are already cooperating bilaterally to enhance China's emission inventory systems. But China needs to provide for enhanced transparency and some form of independent review to create greater global confidence that it is making steady progress towards meeting its target.

There are those in China who oppose taking further steps to share and review relevant data. It is important to assure them that review or consultation does not require intrusive measures, such as factory-level inspections. But China's commitment to enhanced transparency will bring it greater recognition for the significant steps it is already taking to mitigate its emissions, and will also yield dividends in other areas of economic cooperation and trade.

Some may fear that greater openness will make China more vulnerable to trade measures proposed in U.S. climate legislation. Actually, it would have the opposite effect. The better China demonstrates that it is meeting its targets, the less its exposure, because the U.S. bills provide that trade measures will not apply to any country that is doing its part in the fight against global warming.

These two moves by the U.S. and China could unlock the Copenhagen chess game. In the final days of hard bargaining, China can use movement on transparency to leverage a U.S. commitment to more financial resources for the world's most vulnerable, for forest protection, and clean energy deployment. By leveraging that commitment from the U.S., China will earn even higher standing in the eyes of both developed and developing nation partners.

So much rests on the choices these two giants make in the next three days.

This post was co-authored with Barbara Finamore, NRDC's China Program Director

Louis Klarevas: Securing American Primacy While Tackling Climate Change: Toward a National Strategy of Greengemony

2009-12-15T16:50:35Z

As national leaders from around the world are gathering in Copenhagen, Denmark, to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference, the time is ripe to re-assess America's current energy policies - but within the larger framework of how a new approach on the environment will stave off global warming and shore up American primacy.

By not addressing climate change more aggressively and creatively, the United States is squandering an opportunity to secure its global primacy for the next few generations to come. To do this, though, the U.S. must rely on innovation to help the world escape the coming environmental meltdown. Developing the key technologies that will save the planet from global warming will allow the U.S. to outmaneuver potential great power rivals seeking to replace it as the international system's hegemon. But the greening of American strategy must occur soon.

The U.S., however, seems to be stuck in time, unable to move beyond oil-centric geo-politics in any meaningful way.

Often, the gridlock is portrayed as a partisan difference, with Republicans resisting action and Democrats pleading for action.

This, though, is an unfair characterization as there are numerous proactive Republicans and quite a few reticent Democrats.

The real divide is instead one between realists and liberals.

Students of realpolitik, which still heavily guides American foreign policy, largely discount environmental issues as they are not seen as advancing national interests in a way that generates relative power advantages vis-à-vis the other major powers in the system: Russia, China, Japan, India, and the European Union.

Liberals, on the other hand, have recognized that global warming might very well become the greatest challenge ever faced by mankind. As such, their thinking often eschews narrowly defined national interests for the greater global good. This, though, ruffles elected officials whose sworn obligation is, above all, to protect and promote American national interests.

What both sides need to understand is that by becoming a lean, mean, green fighting machine, the U.S. can actually bring together liberals and realists to advance a collective interest which benefits every nation, while at the same time, securing America's global primacy well into the future.

To do so, the U.S. must re-invent itself as not just your traditional hegemon, but as history's first ever green hegemon.

Hegemons are countries that dominate the international system - bailing out other countries in times of global crisis, establishing and maintaining the most important international institutions, and covering the costs that result from free-riding and cheating global obligations. Since 1945, that role has been the purview of the United States.

Immediately after World War II, Europe and Asia laid in ruin, the global economy required resuscitation, the countries of the free world needed security guarantees, and the entire system longed for a multilateral forum where global concerns could be addressed. The U.S., emerging the least scathed by the systemic crisis of fascism's rise, stepped up to the challenge and established the postwar (and current) liberal order.

But don't let the world "liberal" fool you. While many nations benefited from America's new-found hegemony, the U.S. was driven largely by "realist" selfish national interests. The liberal order first and foremost benefited the U.S.

With the U.S. becoming bogged down in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, running a record national debt, and failing to shore up the dollar, the future of American hegemony now seems to be facing a serious contest: potential rivals - acting like sharks smelling blood in the water - wish to challenge the U.S. on a variety of fronts. This has led numerous commentators to forecast the U.S.'s imminent fall from grace.

Not all hope is lost however.

With the impending systemic crisis of global warming on the horizon, the U.S. again finds itself in a position to address a transnational problem in a way that will benefit both the international community collectively and the U.S. selfishly.

The current problem is two-fold. First, the competition for oil is fueling animosities between the major powers. The geopolitics of oil has already emboldened Russia in its 'near abroad' and China in far-off places like Africa and Latin America. As oil is a limited natural resource, a nasty zero-sum contest could be looming on the horizon for the U.S. and its major power rivals - a contest which threatens American primacy and global stability.

Second, converting fossil fuels like oil to run national economies is producing irreversible harm in the form of carbon dioxide emissions. So long as the global economy remains oil-dependent, greenhouse gases will continue to rise. Experts are predicting as much as a 60% increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the next twenty-five years. That likely means more devastating water shortages, droughts, forest fires, floods, and storms.

In other words, if global competition for access to energy resources does not undermine international security, global warming will. And in either case, oil will be a culprit for the instability.

Oil arguably has been the most precious energy resource of the last half-century. But "black gold" is so 20th century. The key resource for this century will be green gold - clean, environmentally-friendly energy like wind, solar, and hydrogen power. Climate change leaves no alternative. And the sooner we realize this, the better off we will be.

What Washington must do in order to avoid the traps of petropolitics is to convert the U.S. into the world's first-ever green hegemon.

For starters, the federal government must drastically increase investment in energy and environmental research and development (E&E R&D). This will require a serious sacrifice, committing upwards of $40 billion annually to E&E R&D - a far cry from the few billion dollars currently being spent.

By promoting a new national project, the U.S. could develop new technologies that will assure it does not drown in a pool of oil. Some solutions are already well known, such as raising fuel standards for automobiles; improving public transportation networks; and expanding nuclear and wind power sources. Others, however, have not progressed much beyond the drawing board: batteries that can store massive amounts of solar (and possibly even wind) power; efficient and cost-effective photovoltaic cells, crop-fuels, and hydrogen-based fuels; and even fusion.

Such innovations will not only provide alternatives to oil, they will also give the U.S. an edge in the global competition for hegemony. If the U.S. is able to produce technologies that allow modern, globalized societies to escape the oil trap, those nations will eventually have no choice but to adopt such technologies. And this will give the U.S. a tremendous economic boom, while simultaneously providing it with means of leverage that can be employed to keep potential foes in check.

The bottom-line is that the U.S. needs to become green energy dominant as opposed to black energy independent - and the best approach for achieving this is to promote a national strategy of greengemony.

Pamela Tom: 2009's Top News Stories

2009-12-15T15:34:26Z

If you're anything like me - living in this mad, mad world of information overload - it may be difficult to look back at 2009 and remember the big news stories that defined this year. There are the stories that were shocking; others were tragic; yet there are also the stories that we may have felt a personal connection to ... the stories that touched our souls, not solely because they were sensational, but because they resonated with our personal experiences.

Personal experience, that depth one gathers through achievements, hardship, or merely time, sparks that quintessential embodiment of purpose ... why we're here, the meaning of life. Particular stories reflect our past joys and future hopes.

Here's my list of 2009's top news stories. What are yours? And why?

1) The death of Michael Jackson
2) President Barack Obama taking office
3) The fallout of the economic downturn, namely, unemployment.
4) Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea
5) Susan Boyle's amazing rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream"
6) The green factor
7) The ongoing fight for gay rights
8) The North Korean detainment of journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling
9) The desecration of journalism and the need to preserve the flow of true information
10) Tiger Woods' fall from grace

We grew up with Michael Jackson. Jackson's music transcends categorization. He was an entertainer, an icon, a devoted father. Yes, I followed the media bombardment during his child molestation trial. At the time, it didn't seem possible. In 2009, Michael received our collective forgiveness and from some, a renewed admiration.

Today I listened to Michael Jackson's music while driving in the car. I couldn't help singing along and moving to the beat while passing motorists probably glanced and chuckled at my exhibition of freedom. It was a good day.

In 2009, stories about politicians' infidelity and celebrity indiscretions seemed to dominate the headlines. What should we really be concerned about? What is churning now that we can respond to in order to change the course of history?

Together we may voice our sentiments. Will the policy makers listen? Probably not. Will affluent movers and shakers lend their support? Perhaps. All we can do is put it out there, and continue to speak out.

Technology now makes it possible to ignite a movement. Short of that, by encouraging people to think about their own important role in this world, we can move mountains. That's it: strength in numbers. Yes, your vote does count.

Let's say goodbye to 2009 with a sense of reflection combined with hope.

Plan to do something. Whether it's finding a job, spending more time with your children, or working toward that goal set years ago. Widen your perspective. There is no time like the present.

As Michael sang, "Heal the world. Make it a better place. For you and for me, and the entire human race."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: Local Governments Can Lead Fight Against Climate Change

2009-12-15T09:42:41Z

COPENHAGEN, Denmark -- This week leaders from around the world gather here, in a quest for a global pact to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and tackle the single greatest challenge of our time.

I am joining them, to discuss the urgency of their efforts, the economic opportunities we can seize, and the tremendous role of subnational governments in climate-change mitigation.

Some pundits have described Copenhagen as the most important world summit since the end of the Second World War. And it has been suggested that without a binding international agreement, the fight against climate change is unwinnable.

Now, it certainly would be terrific if the world's governments reached such an agreement. But as much as 80 percent of the necessary greenhouse-gas reductions will happen at the subnational level. So why should we focus all our faith and hope in international action?

Throughout the course of history, all great movements have been born at the grassroots level. The American independence movement, the civil-rights movement and the women's suffrage movement were all begun by people who did not wait for others. Then they gained momentum and speed, and swept throughout our nation.

There is a lesson in this when discussing climate change. Even in the absence of national and international commitments, we must not ignore the tremendous movement that is already under way to solve our environmental and energy problems.

For example, states, provinces and cities have been busy passing their own laws and emission targets.

In California, we are implementing a law to cut our greenhouse-gas emissions 25 percent by the year 2020. We approved the world's first Low Carbon Fuel Standard and tailpipe emissions standards, which the Obama administration has now adopted.

We have gone out and formed partnerships with other states, provinces and cities in America, Canada, China, Mexico and Europe. And right now we are working with the U.N. to assist developing countries, especially in Africa.

There is a great tectonic shift already under way that is gaining strength every day. And everyone is getting involved, from businesses and entrepreneurs who are investing billions of dollars into green technology, to ordinary citizens who are buying more energy-efficient appliances, conserving water and choosing to pursue greener lifestyles on their own.

There are so many amazing examples.

Right now a foundation in the San Francisco Bay Area is investing in efforts to help upgrade cement factories in China.

Rajendra Pachauri, a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, has started an initiative to replace kerosene lanterns with solar lights for 1 billion rural people.

Electric utilities are installing millions of square feet of solar panels on warehouse rooftops.

Four of the world's largest meat producers have agreed not to buy cattle from deforested areas of the Amazon.

And this movement is about much more than just protecting the environment. It is also about seizing an incredible economic opportunity.

We can create a new economic foundation for the 21st century that is built on clean fuels, clean cars and clean energy.

Today, California leads the United States with more than 125,000 green jobs. In fact, over the last decade, green jobs in California have grown at nearly triple the rate of total job growth.

And it's not just happening in California.

Green jobs in Idaho have jumped 126 percent; in Kansas, 51 percent; in New Mexico, 50 percent.

Texas, which produces the most wind power of any state, has enjoyed a 16 percent increase.

One hundred and fifty years ago, the Industrial Revolution changed the world and ushered in a new era of prosperity. Today, the Green Revolution can do the same.

And to make that happen, we need everyone to come together and sacrifice for the common good, including the environmental community.

Environmentalists must stop letting the perfect become the enemy of the possible. They cannot oppose coal-fired power plants and at the same time block transmission lines for solar fields and wind farms. They cannot oppose safe and controlled offshore drilling, while also opposing nuclear energy.

If we all work together -- environmentalists, businesses, activists, ordinary citizens and subnational governments -- we can push our nations and the world toward a clean, sustainable future. And regardless of what happens in Copenhagen, we will continue pushing ahead toward that future, because we know we must succeed.

Originally published on the Global Viewpoint Network.

China Surprising Leader In Green-Technology

2009-12-15T01:27:05Z

China looms large over the global climate summit in Copenhagen, where Chinese officials are pressing the U.S. and other rich nations to accept new curbs on their emissions and to continue to subsidize poor nations' efforts to adopt clean-energy technology. China is the world's biggest source of carbon emissions. Less understood is the way China is now becoming a source of some of the solutions.

China's vast market and economies of scale are bringing down the cost of solar and wind energy, as well as other environmentally friendly technologies such as electric car batteries. That could help address a major impediment to wide adoption of such technologies: They need heavy subsidies to be economical.

Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson: How to Make the Fate of the Planet Boring

2009-12-14T14:42:00Z

If energy and climate change are the great challenges facing the human race, why are leaders who should be telling us what our options are talking like a bunch of bean counters?

There's probably no better way to confuse and bore people than to start flinging a lot of numbers around. Yet this is exactly what's happening in Copenhagen where world leaders make bold speeches about how we must act and that global warming could be a disaster of epic proportions. Then the whole thing seems to disintegrate into quibbling over the numbers.

For a lot of Americans, it just becomes a blur. President Obama is offering a commitment to greenhouse gas reductions of about 17 percent compared to 2005 levels, while Copenhagen conference organizers say anywhere from 25 to 40 percent cuts are needed, but based on 1990 levels. The Chinese are offering an entirely different formula, promising to cut their "energy intensity" by 40 percent. It means they'll try to switch to cleaner fuels and be more efficient, but they're not actually promising to cut their emissions at all.

Then there's the 350 business. Environmentalists have rallied worldwide to promote a goal of having 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That's what many scientists argue is the maximum amount of CO2 the Earth's climate can stand (although we're already at 387 and likely headed for 450). Much of the coverage quickly turned into scientists debating whether 350 is the right number, or even feasible.

Any number that can spawn more than 4,000 demonstrations from Afghanistan to Antarctica is working for a lot of people. Climate activists have raised their own intensity levels, with more protests in Copenhagen. Unfortunately, anyone who's not already in the movement probably has no idea whatsoever what the whole thing means. For most people, this tit-for-tat over the numbers is utterly bewildering.

Why use 1990 levels as a benchmark, for example? Or 2005? If you're not an expert, this is like sitting in the stands watching the grounds crew argue over where to set up the goalposts and draw the chalk lines, without knowing whether they're about to watch football or curling.

Setting targets is important, and these are perfectly valid, even vital points for scientists and political leaders to argue about. But these discussions are soaring right over the heads of a general public where four in 10 Americans can't name a fossil fuel, according to opinion research by our organization, Public Agenda. Even more can't name a renewable energy source. A Pew Research Center survey found 55 percent said they're heard "nothing at all" about the cap-and-trade proposal in Congress.

We've spent our careers working to get the public engaged in complicated public problems, and we can confidently say that people don't engage with percentages, they engage with choices, especially choices about things that matter to them--their homes and communities, their livelihoods, their children's future. If you present the options fairly and explain them in actual English, not its fuzzy policy-wonk variant, people can and do weigh alternatives, consider the tradeoffs, and come to reasonable conclusions. In fact, letting people grapple with choices is one of the fastest ways to help them move along the learning curve. We've seen it happen time and time again in our work.

This climate change debate doesn't have to turn into a science class, and the fundamental problem isn't that hard to grasp. We need to cut greenhouse gases emissions, while also finding more energy to meet booming worldwide demand that's expected to increase 40 percent over the next twenty years.

We need more energy and cleaner energy, so let's start talking about this in terms of options. What are we using fossil fuels for now? Electricity and cars. What are the choices for switching away from them? Nuclear power, wind and solar, natural gas (which is a fossil fuel, but a cleaner one). What are the alternatives for making them less damaging? Using them much more efficiently and cleaning up coal. How long would it take? It will take a while. No time to lose. How much would it cost? They all cost something, but sticking with the status quo could cost us even more.

Telling people that the planet faces a catastrophe, and then launching into an incomprehensible debate that bears no relationship to people's daily lives could be the worst mixed message of all time. If it's that important, then we owe it to people to explain the choices open to us for generating electricity, fueling our cars and factories, building our houses and living our daily lives in ways that protect, rather than endanger, life on Earth. This numbers game is just shutting them out.

Rhone Resch: Steven Chu Sets the Record Straight on Solar Energy

2009-12-14T14:15:41Z

Earlier today, I attended a briefing by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu in which he announced a new initiative that the administration is launching to expand clean energy technologies in developing countries. This program is a great sign of leadership by the administration given how vocal developing countries have been here at COP15. If you haven't read about the new Renewables and Efficiency Deployment Initiative (Climate REDI), you can read more here.

Specifically with regard to solar, Climate REDI will accelerate the deployment of solar home systems and solar lanterns, as well as increased funding for research and development (R&D). But what really caught my attention during Secretary Chu's briefing was that he debunked two major myths about solar energy.

You may have heard (mostly from people in the fossil fuel industries) that solar is too expensive. As Secretary Chu pointed out, solar prices have dropped dramatically since the 1980s when costs were around $20 per watt for photovoltaic panels. Prices have come down to about $2 per watt currently and are expected to shrink by half to $1 per watt in the next year.

The other myth perpetuated by the fossil fuel executives is that there's too much money being spent on R&D for solar. In fact, the money that was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a one-time boost that got us back to the R&D funding level the solar industry had during the Carter Administration.

The truth is, federal support for solar ended in 1980s and the industry has made incredible cost improvements in the meantime. Since then the solar industry has emerged as an economic growth sector, while fossil fuels have led us to this climate crisis we're negotiating about here in Copenhagen. But for the solar industry to take the next step to play a significant role in fighting climate change and creating jobs, we need to adopt the Solar Bill of Rights which I'll be discussing in greater depth tomorrow at SEIA's BINGO (Business, Industry, Non-Governmental Organization) side event tomorrow at the Bella Center with groSolar CEO Jeff Wolfe and a special guest.

David Helvarg: The Blue Bayou Climate Solution

2009-12-14T11:51:44Z

It's been said that rainforests are the lungs of the world. In fact its tiny photosynthetic algae in the ocean that account for over half the oxygen we breathe. The oceans are the drivers of weather and climate, the generators of rain and storms. The top two feet of the sea contain as much heat as the entire atmosphere. But the oceans are also among the most susceptible environments when it comes to feeling the impact from anthropogenic -- that is to say human generated -- atmospheric carbon (See my Sept. 22 blog 'Bad Acid Trip').

To date much of the discussion on solutions to rapid climate change and ways to reduce our carbon dioxide outputs have focused on industrial sources and on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The burning and clearing of global forests is the second largest source of human generated carbon after the burning of fossil fuels.

However, on October 14, the United Nation's Environmental Program released a report on "Blue Carbon," showing that as much as 7 percent of the carbon dioxide reductions needed to keep atmospheric concentrations of CO2 below 450 parts per million (the still too-high figure diplomats at the Climate Summit in Copenhagen are aiming for) could be achieved by restoring carbon sequestering mangrove forests, salt marshes, and seagrass beds around the world's ocean shores.

These key marine habitats, along with coral reefs, act as the wildlife nurseries of the sea and provide protection from storm surges and tsunamis and filter and purify coastal waters, so protecting them would also provide additional benefits beyond fighting climate change. That's the good news. The bad news, while covering only about .5 percent of the world's oceans and coasts, they are among the most endangered habitats on earth, being destroyed by coastal development, commercial shrimp farms, bottom dredging and fishing trawls, runoff pollution and landfill.

In a strange and disturbing symmetry the U.N. report suggests that while these habitats could reduce our carbon pollution 7 percent their present rate of loss is also around 7 percent annually so that many of these productive brackish and salt water domains could be gone by 2020.

The report warns there is an immediate need to mainstream an ocean agenda into the climate negotiations now taking place in Copenhagen and to develop a global Blue Carbon Fund equivalent to what's been discussed for the reduction of emissions from deforestation and degradation (a REDD Fund). The report doesn't suggest a particular funding mechanism. Luckily I have an idea.

Almost all these Blue Carbon habitats exist in the territorial waters of coastal nations many of who already generate revenues by leasing their offshore waters to foreign fishing fleets and oil and gas companies. In the United States multi-billon dollar royalties are paid to the U.S. Treasury by the offshore oil and gas industry for operating on our public seas. This revenue stream shifts between the second and third largest source of government income after taxes and in close competition with custom tariffs, generating some five billion dollars a year.

Beginning in the 1960s a large part of these offshore revenues went to support the Land and Water Conservation Fund that offset the negative impacts of offshore drilling by buying up parks and wilderness areas for coastal protection and recreation. This was before we understood that oil drilling also represented a product liability issue. This product, used as directed, overheats your planet.

Today, along with land-based solar, wind, geothermal and other green energies a new sector for clean non-carbon production is emerging in offshore wind and tidal power, wave, current and ocean thermal energy conversion. As with oil and gas these offshore industries will be operating on public waters and subject to state and federal royalty payments.

It would make eminent sense if the public revenues generated by this new climate clean marine energy were used for a dedicated Blue Carbon Fund that would protect and restore carbon sequestering coastal wetlands, mangroves and seagrass meadows.

A recently established 'Blue Climate Coalition,' made up of marine scientists and conservationists from around the world is advocating for a range of funding mechanisms while also seeking increased scientific research funds to better understand the role these 'Blue Carbon' habitats play in regulating our climate.

Large scale restoration in the United States doesn't need to wait on the emergence of a clean-energy boom offshore however but could start immediately if we'd implement existing (though to date largely unfunded) federal and state commitments of over twenty billion dollars for the reestablishment of 'America's Wetland,' the rapidly declining salt marshes known as the Louisiana Bayous, also the recovery of the seriously degraded Chesapeake Bay Estuary and the extensive Florida Everglades, 'river of grass.' These are public works projects that could quickly generate 'shovel ready' jobs for unemployed workers while also protecting us from the worst impacts of climate change.

Saving our Carbon Blue habitats is just one practical way we can start taking climate action while also helping restore the living blue part of our blue marble planet. Like Rahm Emanuel says, 'No crisis should go to waste.'

Obama's Next Economic Push To Be Staged At Home Depot

2009-12-12T17:46:53Z

The White House announced on Saturday that President Obama will be hosting a discussion about his new home retrofitting proposal at a Home Depot store in the Washington D.C. area.

The event will be invitation only, and will focus on "the economic impacts of energy saving home retrofits." According to the White House press release, the President intends to "solicit ideas" from members of the labor, manufacturing and small business communities.

Last week, Obama asked Congress to create incentives for homeowners who make their property more energy efficient.

Jurriaan Kamp: A Climate That Copenhagen Cannot Change

2009-12-11T14:04:29Z

After four days the picture already becomes clear: it is going to be very hard for the world community as assembled at the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen to reach the desired consensus necessary to halt global warming. African countries cannot even agree amongst themselves, Brazil, India, South Africa and China come with their own joint perspective as leaders of the developing world and Western countries "secretly" work on a deal to exclude the Third World and take the whole conversation away from the UN.

It must have been easier to build the tower of Babel. Many voices outside the UN Conference nonetheless agree that the challenge of global warming presents a great opportunity for innovation and economic development. In fact it presents opportunity to lead meaningful lives. Isn't it much more interesting to develop and build the next sustainable renewable energy system than to design another "financial product"?

Humanity stands on the threshold of the transformation of the current economies based on polluting fossil fuels into sustainable renewable energy economies. This transformation will provide millions of new jobs. It will halt global warming. It will create a more fair and just world. It will clean our environment and make our lives healthier. In other words, the problem of global warming presents an inspiring opportunity to make our world a better place.

This is all going to happen. And there is one thing that we don't need, one event that may even present an obstacle to all these promising developments. That is the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen. Think about it. We have seen many technological revolutions throughout history that have reshaped the world with the digital revolution of the Internet as the most recent one. And yet none of these have been brought about through an international treaty that requires the consensus of the global community. That is not the way that such revolutions work. When big changes happen there are always vested interests that stand to lose a lot. These interests are not going to easily give way to the new opportunities. And exactly these interests are coming together in Copenhagen. That's why Hermann Scheer, member of the German parliament, says in a special free issue of Ode Magazine: "The current climate negotiations will never lead to the renewable energy economy that we need because they are based on the wrong premise. That premise is that the shift to clean energy will be an economic burden, so agreement needs to be reached on common solutions, common steps and common policies to share that burden."

Scheer's voice is important. He is a former minister in the German government and the president of Eurosolar, the European Association for Renewable Energy. But most importantly Scheer was the primary architect of the German Renewable Energy Act that has made Germany the world leader in solar power. Mind you, Germany, not exactly the country that captures the most sunshine in the world!

Scheer has shown what we need to transform our fossil fuel economies. We need to support new innovative industries with market access and we need to introduce taxes that punish polluting behavior. That's the simplest and most efficient way to generate the economic transformation that we need. But such measures will have to be local as the circumstances vary greatly. The generation of solar power in the Sahara requires a different supportive approach than the generation of wind energy on the North Sea.

So as far as Hermann Scheer is concerned we should quickly pass Copenhagen and go on with the real important jobs on the national levels. In his essay in Ode he writes: "The right premise is: The shift to clean energy has great economic benefits to all countries that embark on the journey. Arguing from the right premise, there is no need for a global contract." In other words: We just need countries to implement national and/or regional policies for new industries to grow. Then we still need to overcome vested interests and it won't be a simple task. But at least we don't need an impossible global consensus.

Kristen Psaki: Home Weatherization: One of America's Few Industries Primed for Expansion

2009-12-10T17:46:03Z

It's been a big few week for jobs. At last Thursday'sJobs Summit President Obama announced the question of the moment, "How do we get businesses to start hiring again?" How do we get folks back to work?

We all know someone. We spoke to a friend just yesterday -- an unemployed elevator technician in the area -- whose nerves are rattling with the approaching holiday season. We actually had good news for him, we mentioned the job creation machine right in our nation's capital -- an American-made job creation machine.

WeatherizeDC launched in September and is proving that it's really possible to create good green jobs now -- today, yesterday, and tomorrow. We initially realized two things: home weatherization represents one of America's few industries primed for expansion and job creation (check out cash for caulkers buzz, Romer confirms) and that a missing link has been a partnership between non-profits, organized labor and the local small businesses that perform the audits and weatherizations and ultimately hire new workers. WeatherizeDC is the campaign of a local non-profit forging these crucial and sustainable partnerships with small home performance businesses, the community and organized labor to advance economic and environmental justice.

How we do it? WeatherizeDC's Green Teams gather together their neighbors and friends through house meetings, door-to-door canvasses and events to help them through the details and process of home weatherization. Audits and weatherizations then take place in discounted group rates and the home performance businesses of the local community finally grow and finally hire given the increased demand. Organized Green Teams are gearing up to weatherize 200 homes by March, which in turn will generate up to seven good green jobs. It's not only job creation, it's community-driven job creation.

Up to date, the WeatherizeDC community members and youth leaders have knocked on thousands of doors, hosted a dozen home energy meetings on community-based weatherization and identified hundreds of homeowners interested in taking the next step. As of the beginning of this week, WeatherizeDC generated enough new demand for our first small business partner to hire two new full-time workers equipped with family-sustaining wages and benefits. It's job creation now.

We're excited about the Jobs Summit and President Obama's plan to quickly activate employment. But, we're even more excited about 2010 being a year of community-driven job creation machines popping up all over the country. Together, we will reenergize our nation's economy. Interested?

Bob Dinneen: Consensus in Copenhagen? Replace Gasoline with Biofuels!

2009-12-10T15:49:15Z

As negotiators from approximately 200 countries convene in Copenhagen for the United Nations climate change conference, there's one issue on which the world's wealthier and poorer nations should be able to agree:

Immediate action is needed to increase the production of biofuels of all kinds, particularly for use in the transportation sector that accounts for a large and growing share of greenhouse gas emissions.

After all, the major source of greenhouse gas emissions is fossil fuel combustion - which mostly means running cars, trucks and other vehicles with petroleum products, such as gasoline. Transportation accounts for 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and this share will increase in 25 years when 3 billion cars throughout our planet will also drive daily oil consumption from the current 86 million barrels to a projected 120 million barrels.

Fortunately, one solution is already available. With the support and coordination of governments and international bodies, existing and emerging biofuels can continue to replace the use of gasoline and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Delegates to Copenhagen may not know it, but the limousines in which they are riding are running on ethanol made from straw.

This year, the world is expected to produce 80 billion liters (around 21 billion gallons) of ethanol, replacing the need for 1.9 billion barrels a day of crude oil. In 2008, the 9 billion gallons of domestic ethanol produced and consumed in the US resulted in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions comparable to removing 2.1 million cars from the road.

Imagine the impact of increased production and consumption of ethanol on a global scale. It is estimated that the global production of biofuels will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 123 million tons in 2009 alone. Such an impressive and growing environmental benefit stands in stark contrast to the environmental footprint of the petroleum industry which continues to worsen.

Researchers from the University of Nebraska have reported that, compared to gasoline, today's ethanol reduces direct greenhouse gas emissions between 48 percent to 59 percent. This figure is for the current generation of ethanol which is made mostly from grains, such as corn.

The environmental benefits may be even greater from the next generation of ethanol, made from cellulosic sources such as wastes from wood and plants. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, ethanol produced from these cellulosic feedstocks has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 85 percent, compared to gasoline.

Meanwhile, as conventional oil is depleted and exploration shifts to unconventional sources such as tar sands, shale and the deep sea, finding and using petroleum will require more energy and release more greenhouse gases.

All of this is occurring against a backdrop of increased agricultural productivity. Vast tracts of arable land remain unused. As the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has reported, there are, at present, 1.5 billion hectares of land used for farming. That is only 11 percent of the world's surface area, and almost twice as much arable land - 2.8 billion acres - remains unused. With new farming technologies, this land can be responsibly and sustainably managed to provide a growing population both food and renewable fuel.

That is why it is so encouraging that the developing world has huge supplies of the "biomass" (wood and plant wastes) that will be the feedstocks for the next generation of biofuels. As one recent study concluded, biomass could fuel 65 percent of the world's energy consumption by 2050. Sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America account for about half of this global potential.

These facts stand in contrast to those who argue biofuels are destroying the land and responsible for deforestation. Yet, forest land in the US has been increasing at the same time that ethanol production has grown. Moreover, global deforestation has slowed as global biofuel production has accelerated.
The development of biofuels could fuel the economies of developing countries, reducing the desperation that produces deforestation by illegal logging, cattle ranching, and subsistence farming.

Energy security, economic growth, and environmental responsibility: These are three reasons why the Copenhagen climate change conference should create a new consensus, among developed and developing nations, to encourage the production and use of biofuels.

The RFA is working with the Global Renewable Fuels Association, representing over 60 percent of the world's renewable fuels production from 30 different countries, to make the case for biofuels before international bodies.

Jeremy Nichols: Governor Ritter REDI-ing to Retire Coal Plants

2009-12-10T15:26:31Z

In the midst of one exciting Copenhagen Climate Conference, it's not just WildEarth Guardians calling for the retirement of coal-fired power plants in Colorado -- even the Governor's Office is on board now.

Last week, the Governor's Energy Office announced the release of a report that concluded if Colorado has any hope of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020, it's going to take retiring coal-fired power plants.

Cathy Proctor with the Denver Business Journal put it this way:

A new report from the Governor's Energy Office says there is no way that Colorado's utilities can cut their carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 unless major investments are made and older coal-fired power plants shut down.

Called the "Renewable Energy Development Infrastructure" report (that's REDI, which sounds like "Ready"!), the report presents a slew of recommendations for achieving Colorado's goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants -- the largest source of greenhouse gases in the state -- 20% below 2005 levels by 2020. Among them:

Consider decreasing the utilization factor of coal-fired generation and/or consider early retirement of the oldest and least efficient coal-fired units.

It's a welcome recommendation, but not a surprise. It's no secret that carbon dioxide emissions from power plants are on track to increase, largely due to the fact that Xcel Energy is slated to fire up the brand new Comanche 3 coal-fired boiler in Pueblo. All the renewable energy in the world can't and won't make up for the fact that unless Colorado starts cutting back on coal burning, greenhouse gases are going to keep climbing.

That's why last month, a broad (and seemingly prescient) coalition of groups formally called on Ritter to start moving toward retiring coal-fired power plants in Colorado.

To his credit, Governor Ritter praised the REDI report. It's a welcome response from the governor, especially after last month when Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer dismissed a rally calling on Governor Ritter to start planning for the retirement of coal-fired power plants as a "ridiculous publicity stunt."

Touché, Evan.

***

Wild Bites

In related news, WildEarth Guardians and the San Juan Citizens Alliance just inked a deal with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to update national clean air standards for oil and gas drilling operations. The settlement resolves a lawsuit filed earlier this year and opens the door for the most sweeping overhaul of federal oil and gas air quality regulations ever.

Oil and gas industry talking head Kathleen Sgamma responded, "We're certainly not the entire problem." Exactly. When it comes to clean air, the oil and gas industry is a problem. They may not be the entire problem, but they're a problem nonetheless. Thanks to Kathleen for clarifying that.

And if you think WildEarth Guardians only cares about shutting down coal-fired power plants and the oil and gas drilling, think again.

WildEarth Guardians is petitioning the U.S. Government to end the war on wildlife. Every year the federal government spends millions of dollars to gun down wildlife from the air and plant poison traps on public lands. It's a wasteful and inhumane practice that not only puts imperiled wildlife at risk, but undermines the government's own efforts to restore populations of threatened and endangered species. The government's war on wildlife, my friends, is not a just war.

This is clowning around.

Do-It-Yourself Solar Power Hits Stores

2009-12-10T06:09:51Z

NEW YORK — Solar technology is going where it has never gone before: onto the shelves at retail stores where do-it-yourselfers can now plunk a panel into a shopping cart and bring it home to install.

Lowe's has begun stocking solar panels at its California stores and plans to roll them out across the country next year.

Copenhagen Climate Summit In Disarray After 'Danish Text' Leak

2009-12-08T10:18:15Z

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

Dan Becker and James Gerstenzang: Obama on His Own

2009-12-07T16:24:53Z

Cross-posted from Truthdig.com

In Copenhagen, a major binding agreement at the global warming summit is not to be. Not this year. In Washington, the Senate is so divided that it became clear months ago that climate legislation will be pushed off until 2010 at the earliest.

Still, the United States can meet the challenge of a world demanding that it take the lead on global warming. Here's how:

Using his executive authority, President Barack Obama can instruct power plants to slash emissions, order new efficiency standards to cut the energy used by consumer and commercial appliances, and help the world's least developed nations use solar power -- rather than heavily polluting wood fires -- for cooking.

If he does so, he will send a strong signal that Washington is leading the world away from a dangerous warming of the climate. He will head to Copenhagen next week armed with powerful tools to challenge negotiators to produce an agreement with real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

He will step smartly toward meeting -- and moving beyond -- his pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 17 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels.

And these are just a few of the real and measurable reductions he can order with a stroke of a presidential pen.

Motor vehicles and power plants account for two-thirds of the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas.

Tackling pollution from America's ubiquitous motor vehicles, Obama has ordered that by 2016the new cars and light trucks sold in the United States cut their tailpipe emissions by 30 percent. It is the biggest single step in U.S. history to reduce the nation's global warming pollution, and a significant down payment demonstrating the president's willingness to act.

Complementing that decision, Obama can order the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Air Act to issue new rules cutting the heat-trapping emissions from major power plants, oil refineries and other big industrial sources. These rules can require coal-fired power plants to switch to cleaner natural gas.

Converting the 100 dirtiest plants would cut pollution from coal-fired power facilities by 15 percent, according to David Bookbinder, the Sierra Club's chief climate counsel. "It's incredibly efficient as a step to save carbon dioxide emissions," he says.

To be sure, polluters would seek to slow the changeover by challenging the rule in court. The administration would need to act vigorously, seeking quick court action and pressuring polluters to innovate, not litigate.

Obama can also act to cut energy use. He can reduce demand for electricity by speeding up new standards for household and commercial appliances--from window air conditioners and microwave ovens to walk-in freezers and commercial boilers. Less use of electricity means less coal is burned to produce it. As Energy Secretary Steven Chu put it: "Energy efficiency can be improved very quickly. ... Appliance standards, ka-BOOM, can be had right away."

By 2020, current standards will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 6.5 percent. Obama can toughen new standards and accelerate their start date, for an additional reduction of 1.3 percent over the same period, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project determined in a report published in July.

The United Nations estimates that 2.5 billion people rely on wood, dung and other dirty fuels for cooking. The short-lived black carbon, or soot, from their fires causes a significant amount of global warming.

Reducing it would quickly scale back some heat-trapping emissions, giving us more time to deal with the long-range carbon dioxide problem.

Obama can expand projects in the developing world that have been funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the EPA, and send solar cookers to impoverished people from Haiti to Kenya to Nepal.

It is not unusual, says Paul Munsen, president of Sun Ovens International Inc., which sells solar cookers, for a family to spend half its income on charcoal, or many of its waking hours scavenging for wood.

Trading some of the fires for solar stoves would save money, time, forests--and a significant amount of emissions.

Simple cardboard-and-aluminum stoves are manufactured for as little as $8 each, according to Solar Cookers International, a nonprofit organization that distributes solar stoves to impoverished communities abroad.

The world's largest climate polluter until recently, the United States (now second to China) has an obligation to lead and the resources and technology to act.

With its clean-car order, the Obama administration has already taken the first powerful step to reduce America's carbon footprint. Without waiting for Congress, the administration's effort can expand beyond high-tech clean cars to include cleaner power plants, more-efficient freezers and even low-tech solar cookers.

Taking the initiative, Obama would challenge the major countries in the developed and developing world to step up the fight against global warming. Most important, he would improve the odds that the Copenhagen negotiations will set the world on the path toward a sound climate treaty.

Dan Becker is director of the Safe Climate Campaign, which advocates strong measures to curb global warming. James Gerstenzang, the Safe Climate Campaign's editorial director, formerly covered the White House and the environment for the Los Angeles Times.

A. Siegel: Clean Energy Jobs Should Go Swimming

2009-12-07T16:13:11Z

This is part of a series of brief posts on 'clean energy jobs' opportunities for sparking meaningful employment, quickly, in the United States as discussed in Clean Energy Jobs: Stimulate Me.

Clean Energy Jobs Go Swimming: $300 million per year for 10,000 jobs

Legislation is, they say, analogous to making sausage. Sometimes, in the mixing and mashing, seemingly well-intentioned and sensible options can create counter-productive situations and leave many valued goods on the table. One small example of this could open the door to creating employment, lowering costs for state & local governments (including educational institutions, improving 'customer' satisfaction, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

When it came to the stimulus package earlier this year, as part of a politically popular move limiting programs eligible for funding, "swimming pools" were explicitly excluded from ARRA funding mechanisms. While, amid serious economic stress and government investment to keep the economic from continuing in freefall, it might have seemed morally appropriate to do this, this restriction simply flies in the face of reality and good sense.

Around the country, whether in schools (K-12 and universities/colleges) or public parks/rec facilities, state and local governments (and independent public recreation authorities) own and operate swimming pools. Many of these, especially as one moves away from the sun belt, are indoor pools heated for good portions of the year. For example, Fairfax, Virginia, has nine recreation centers with indoor swimming pools. Dependent on many factors, the annual heating bill for one of these (large) pools can run $10,000s to even $100,000s.

Such utility bills typically continue, often under the radar, even amid reduced local tax revenues as a 'fixed expense' with seemingly no good choice: continue to operate the pool (perhaps saving some $s by lowering the temperature a few degrees and angering swimmers; perhaps raise entry fees significantly and cut into usage) or close it down for months at a time. Few localities choose the shutdown option, unless near bankruptcy, thereby almost guaranteeing above-inflation rate increases in the utility bills even as local revenues fall. Another option, however, exists -- one that was precluded by the ARRA restrictions and that should be opened with a jobs package: solar hot water.

Solar hot water for pools represents one of the fastest payback options for renewable energy systems. Without even accounting for any outside assistance, according to the Department of Energy:

A solar pool heating system usually ... provides a payback of between 1.5 and 7 years, depending on your local fuel costs. They also typically last longer than gas and heat pump pool heaters.

"Between 1.5 and 7 years" to payback? That is, roughly, stating that there is an ROI of between 10 and 60+ percent per year of energy savings versus the cost of installation. This, as well, doesn't account for reduced maintenance costs and lower future system replacement costs.

This Energy Smart choice, however, falls through the cracks in many local government planning systems. Solar isn't well understood and, often, viewed as some form of 'enviro-liberal luxury' item. Utilities come out of a different budget than infrastructure investments. Utility costs are often undifferentiated, thus the $100,000 to heat a pool is simply wrapped up in the $300,000 (example) of utilities to run a rec center. And, amid economic constraints, investment budgets for 'enviro-liberal luxury' items are often the first to go to the wayside.

Here, however, is a straightforward way for the Federal government to spark local business activity throughout most of the nation, help local governments reduce operating costs (SAVE MONEY!) while providing better public services (warmer pools at lower cost), foster improved infrastructure for renewable energy projects throughout the nation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and create jobs.

At a rough estimate, putting in solar hot water heating in an enclosed public pool might run roughly $100,000 on average. A Federal program could combine direct payments along with additional assistance: a direct payment of 50 percent along with, as necessary, a ten-year loan program for the remaining portion. In essence, this would provide local governments a path toward $10,000s a year in savings on every heated pool's operating costs, money that could be used to keep teachers and policemen on payroll or pay for other threatened local government expenditures (and/or reducing the burden on taxpayers).

Such a program would be a highly effective leveraging tool as part of Federal assistance to state and local governments. The Federal assistance would pay back, a high rate of return, in terms of local and state governance costs. And, it would foster jobs.

Due to the leveraging amount, assuming that the Federal costs would end up (at the high end) at about 66% of installation costs, every million invested should support about 30 direct and indirect jobs (which, of course, includes the teachers not fired due to local government savings).

Let's take that Fairfax County recreation department case: nine large indoor pools. Assuming (almost certainly low) that each pool costs $50,000 to heat each year, this totals some $450,000 in annual heating costs. Pool heating percentage of total costs varies, but a 50 percent figure is a reasonable working number: thus, annual savings would be $225,000 (or roughly 3 teachers with benefits). Let us assume that it would take $1 million to put in solar hot water heating for all of these large pools. The upfront costs for the solar heating would be paid back in just under 4.5 years (at a 22.5% per year savings), assuming that energy costs don't rise. If the Federal government paid half the costs, the County would see its investment paid back in just over two years. A two-year, 40% per year, payback seems quite sensible for funding via a bond program that might cost the County's citizens about 5 percent per year in interest. And, by the way, this does not count the various tax and other economic benefits that would accrue back to the County of Fairfax, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Federal government due to business activity, employment taxes, and other financial implications of such a program.

A $200 million per year program, assuming the Federal government's costs total 66% on average, would mean some $300 million per year invested in solar heating for public swimming pools (local & state rec centers and parks; K-12 schools; public universities). In just a few years, the majority of the nation's public heated pools could be converted to solar heating. A $400 million program ($600 or so total investment) would support the conversion of roughly 6000 public swimming pools around the nation. This program could, as well, easily be extended to Federal pools (such on military bases), assistance to non-profit pools (notably private educational institutions), and assistance to backfitting solar heating to commercial pools (such as water parks). (The program could, as well, be expanded to energy efficiency in these facilities from pool covers to more efficient pumps or otherwise.) Let us say, with that additional effort, a $300 million / year program would leverage to $500 million / year and rapidly transform the heating of America's large pools from fossil fuels to renewable energy and increase energy efficiency in America's recreational swimming.

Clean Energy Jobs Go Swimming: $300 million per year for 10,000 jobs

Clean Energy Jobs series posts:

Clean Energy Jobs Fill Labs

Clean Energy Jobs Go To The Cleaners

Clean Energy Jobs Blow In (not Blow Up) Coal River Mountain

Clean Energy Takes the PHE School Bus

Clean Energy Jobs Go to the Market

Clean Energy Jobs Go to School

Tips for the Job Summit: Can we say Clean Energy Jobs?

Clean Energy Jobs: Stimulate Me