Green Jobs, Gore's Gaff & Government Getting Out of the Way: The Green Skeptic on FOX

This morning I talked with Stuart Varney about green jobs, Al Gore's bizarre statement equating climate skeptics with racists, and getting the government out of the way of private sector job creation.

Here's the video:




And here's a link in case the player doesn't work in your browser: The Green Skeptic on FOX

Gore Now Says Corn Ethanol "Was Not a Good Policy"

Traded Corn for Votes?

Despite being a proponent of corn ethanol policy in the past, former vice-president Al Gore now says corn-based ethanol in the United States was "not a good policy."

His comments, made at a green energy business conference in Athens, came as tax breaks for ethanol are up for renewal at the end of this year.

According to the International Energy Industry, ethanol subsidies reached US$7.7 billion last year and biofuels as a whole garnered more subsidies than any other form of renewable energy.

"First generation ethanol I think was a mistake," said Gore. "The energy conversion ratios are at best very small." But, he went on to say that it is difficult to change such programs once strong lobbies keep it going.

He blamed his own support on his presidential ambitions.

"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee," Gore offered. "And I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president."

In other words, Gore wanted support from the corn lobbies for his failed presidential candidacy.

The unintended consequences of ramping up US corn ethanol production became apparent in 2008 when food prices skyrocketed, in part because of the conversion of food crops to biofuel production.

This year, according to Goldman Sachs analysts, the ethanol industry will consume about 41 percent of US corn or about 15 percent of the corn crop worldwide.

We've been saying for some time that corn ethanol was the Abilene Paradox of alternative energy, in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to their better judgment.

With all the folks who jumped on the bandwagon standing to benefit from the widespread production -- from farmers and producers in the US Midwest to presidential candidates -- it appears self-interest may have been the real driver of the ethanol-powered bus to the west Texas town.

Related articles

• At Long Last, Al Gore Thinks Ethanol Subsidies Are a Bad Idea (reason.com)
• "Gore: corn-ethanol subsidy "not a good policy"" and related posts (qando.net)
• Al Gore Opposes Corn-Based Ethanol Subsidies (independent.org)
• Al Gore's mea culpa for corn ethanol support (msnbc.msn.com)
• Report: Al Gore Reverses View on Ethanol, Blames Politics for Previous Support (foxnews.com)

Green Decade: Were the Aughts All for Naught?

It was the best of decades; it was the worst of decades. Any way you slice it, the Aughts were a surprising decade for the green movement.

Janus-headed, the Aughts were, as entrepreneur and hedge-fund blogger Howard Lindzon pointed out in his end of the decade post, the "decade was all about two things, creative and greedy destruction."

From the Clinton/Gore failures to act on climate change when they had the opportunity, if not the Congress, to the Bush Administration's eviscerating the EPA and altering documents while encouraging quiet progress on emissions reductions, doesn't seem like a decade of progress.

Still, the Aughts saw "sustainability" and "green" move decidedly more mainstream, but it didn't start out that way.

In early 2000, just before the dot-com bubble burst, I was being romanced by a start-up called "Verde.com," which billed itself as "a 360-degree media company, like Martha Stewart." Unfortunately, there was no Martha Stewart in the model, and the idea was seven years too soon. It flamed out by summer.

By 2007-08, Al Gore became the Martha Stewart of Green, and Discovery Communications launched "planet green," which had a lot of similarities to the Verde model. Green became the new Black.

Celebrities jumped on the bandwagon, driven by Mr. Gore, and the environment even had its own rock extravaganza. But despite its celebrity staying power, and some traction even in the wake of recession, at decade's end consumer choices still have "more to do with the personal benefit as opposed to having some sort of general sense that we have to save the planet," as GfK's Tim Kenyon told Joel Makower.

And there is a growing sense that, despite the scientific "consensus" on climate change and heightened public awareness brought about by Mr. Gore's Academy Award-winning film, "An Inconvenient Truth," environmentalists and climate scientists alike may have played too heavy a hand when it comes to the "climate crisis."

At the end of the Aughts an increased number of Americans believe global warming is exaggerated and fewer see solid evidence of global warming. In fact, as a 2009 Pew study revealed, more Americans believe in angels than human's role in global warming.

Meanwhile, on the practical side, Green Buildings LEED the way. The US Green Building Council launched its certification in 2000 and in the ensuing years it became not only the gold standard, but ubiquitous in the building trade.  So much so that a survey of commercial real estate executives conducted by Turner Construction Company in late 2008 showed that plans to build green would not be affected by credit market conditions.

Biodiversity loss continued to spiral through the decade, with the latest update of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species cataloging 17,291 out of 47,677 assessed species being threatened with extinction.

While a 2004 study by World Wildlife Fund, Status of Coral Reefs Around the World, found that 20 percent of the world’s coral reefs have been effectively destroyed and show no immediate prospects of recovery, another 24 percent are under imminent risk of collapse through human pressures, and a further 26 percent are under a longer term threat of collapse.

Still, some progress was made on the conservation front with Brazil leading the way. Brazil accounted for 60 percent of total terrestrial conservation during the decade, according to Mongabay.com's analysis of global conservation data. Unfortunately, Brazil also topped the list of forest destroyers, losing 175,000 square kilometers of Amazon rainforest over the decade.

The Aughts may also mark the end of big, global plans, treaties and conventions that fail to inspire or make progress. One of the hard lessons of this decade has been that globalization of environmental action is doomed to failure by entrenched interests. In the teens, big treaties and plans must give way to local action, stewardship, and adaptation.

I learned this the hard way at the Nature Conservancy as we pushed forward with a big hairy audacious goal that was not, ultimately, achievable. When I pressed others on what would happen if we didn't meet our targets by 2015, I was told "we'll just revise the goal." That sounded too much like the UN and World Bank for my taste.

We also watched with horror as centralized decisions to protect forests in one country led to increased destruction in other countries and biofuels production led to unintended consequences, from skyrocketing food prices to forest destruction.

Yet, I have seen how local people from Indonesia to Ecuador and India to the Caribbean are taking action despite big global pronouncements. I remain convinced that conservation needs to be local to be global -- or "glocal," to use Tom Friedman's coinage. We need local action with a global understanding and a heavy dose of scenario planning.

By the end of the decade, the Copenhagen Climate Summit laid a big goose egg on the UN's efforts to get a global agreement on reducing emissions. Tolling the death knell for top-down, government-led negotiations, in my opinion.

This was also the decade when green became gold. Venture investors poured money into clean tech innovations in the latter half of the decade, reaching a record $7.6 billion in 2008 and only dipping to around $5 billion in 2009, as entrepreneurs and investors tried to help lead the economy back to health.

Wal-Mart surprised everybody in the 00s by leading the way with new standards for sustainability on its shelves, in its stores, and up and down its supply chain. Industrial carpet manufacturer Interface made progress on climbing "Mt. Sustainability," and GE re-envisioned itself as a purveyor of "ecoimagination," bringing good and green things to life.

The Toyota Prius hybrid was introduced in July 2000 and, in its peak year of sales 2007, Toyota sold 180,000 units in the United States. But the Aughts truly were the decade of the "other 2-axle 4-tire vehicle," which includes SUVs and light trucks.

In 2000, there were 79,084,979 such vehicles on US roads; by 2007 there were more than 100 million, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. In 2004 alone, GM sold 28,898 gas-hog Hummers, many of them to suburban families and even city dwellers.

Despite the resistance and doublespeak of US auto-manufacturers, by decade's end, Ford saw its hybrid sales increase and was betting its future on cars like the Escape Hybrid, Fusion and Focus, while GM, limping along with the help of a government bailout, promised the plug-in hybrid Volt and was looking for a buyer for its Hummer division.

In 2005, I wrote that the green tent needed to be expanded. Over the decade, the tent expanded, but is it yet big enough? At the start of the decade, green was seen as a pursuit of elite, white highly educated liberals. The complexion has changed a little, thanks to environmental leaders like Van Jones, Majora Carter, and Jerome Ringo, along with religious leaders like Ted Haggard, Jim Ball, and Rick Warren, but has it really become more inclusive?

In many ways, it seems the movement is even more liberal than it was last century as, other than Governors Schwarzenegger and Crist, the GOP has largely abandoned the environment despite the legacy of Republicans Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. And, in my view, the more partisan this issue becomes, the more ground it will lose.

Were the Aughts all for Naught? I'm guessing not. Really some progress has been made in a decade of extreme triumphs and failures, tragedies and excess. But we've still along way to go.

What lessons have I learned this past decade? I've learned that private, direct action really is the best way to make change happen; that a new green economy is possible only when we figure out how to make it profitable; that neither big governments nor big NGOs are the game-changers and we should put our trust in the entrepreneurs (social or otherwise); and, finally, that efficiency and innovation can help lead the way to a better future.

May the teens, be a decade of progress and prosperity. Happy New Year!

(Thanks to James Bedell of build2sustain and Jamie Burdett of Worn Again for suggestions that led to the focus of this post.)

On Al Gore, Twitter, Puppies, and Bacon (the Food, Not Kevin)

Twitter is an amazing animal. Yesterday, before heading to a meeting with Al Gore, which I wrote about last night, I decided to ask the Twitterverse what they wanted me to ask him.

Here is a sampling of the responses:



Pretty cool to have such a quick response from the Twitterverse. Thanks to everyone who responded.

In the end, I got to ask one question of Mr. Gore and I went with, "Do you think it is possible for traditional industries, such as the auto industry to adapt and change for the new green economy?"

His answer? "Many of us wish they had done so years ago instead of giving Toyota a 7-year lead in hybrid drive-train development," Mr. Gore said. "But I do think there are plenty of opportunities for industries to get on board now -- and those that see it will do so; those that don't will be gone."

Perhaps Mr. Gore will visit the green skeptic and tackle the questions above in Disqus comments, assuming he is a Disqus user.

(Note: As an experiment, I'm using the words Gore, Puppies, and Bacon in the title of this post.)

Related articles by Zemanta

• So Far, Al Gore Is Terrible At Twitter
• Underscore no more: Twitter renames Al Gore

On Al Gore, Crises, and Sustainability

Image by World Economic Forum via Flickr"Short-term thinking has led to the climate crisis, just as it has led to the financial crisis," Al Gore told the group of us gathered at PNC Bank in Center City Philadelphia this afternoon. "Our financial system has been functionally insane -- we need a sustainable capitalism."

It's a message Mr. Gore as been giving over the past year, and one that seems to resonate with folks, and certainly with many in the room who were brought together by outgoing Pennsylvania Treasurer Robin Wiessmann.

"The solution to the financial, environmental and energy crises we face is the same," Mr. Gore opined. "Reduce our dependency on polluting sources and troubled assets."

He also suggested that we need to return to a long-term view, whether it's investing or protecting the environment.

Speaking of his own firm, Generation Investment Management, Mr. Gore suggested, "We set out to prove that you can outperform by adapting sustainability principles. We asked, 'When you use the word profit, what do you mean? Ninety days? Twelve months? Or seven years? We wanted a sustained profitability."

As I've written elsewhere on this blog, Mr. Gore has settled into his role as climate statesman very well. He has a kind of homespun-meets businessman demeanor that is appealing when he stays away from hyperbole.

I'm concerned about his overuse of the word "crisis," for instance, and his insistence on the "facts" about global warming, dismissing questions about variations in arctic ice calculations as relying on mere "factoids."

And I do wish he would stop using the allusion to the Chinese character for Crisis being "a combination of the characters for 'danger' and 'opportunity,'" which has been disputed by the University of Pennsylvania's Victor H. Mair, professor of Chinese language and literature, and which I've written about elsewhere on this blog.

But he has a point when it comes to the long view. How can we expect economies, companies, or people in general to embrace sustainability when they are expected to think only of the next week, the next quarter, even the next year rather than in the lifetime of a business-cycle or a generation?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Sorry, Climate Change Wouldn't Hurt America's Economy
• Can cities save the planet? The promise and challenge of green urbanism.
• The Environmentalist War on Science:
• Global Warming Threatens Polar Bear Population?
• Sustainable Business Movement Born in Philadelphia
• Climate change still a concern despite economy: poll

The New New Economy: This Caulking Gun For Hire

Image via Wikipedia"Caulk, baby, caulk," exclaimed Melissa Berman, CEO of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA), as she held up a caulking gun to close today's New New Economy conference in New York.

Caulking guns and energy efficiency haven't got this much play since Jimmy Carter turned down the thermostat at the White House and donned his peanut-colored Mr. Rogers cardigan on national television.

The conference, hosted by RPA, focused on investing in climate change solutions during challenging times. It was attended by over 400 investors, philanthropic advisors, foundation heads and philanthropists.

Van Jones, of Green for All, kicked off the morning in his inimitable style, at times poking fun at and exhorting the crowd, but always on target with solutions.

Jones makes green seem, well, fun and relevant, and yet still manages to communicate the gravity and urgency of the situation. Greens everywhere should study his style and delivery, as well as his message.

The American economy needs to be retooled, Jones said, from an economy based upon consumption, debt, and destruction to one based on production, thrift, and restoration.

"You might call it a new green thing, but my grandmother put it another way: 'Don't waste stuff.'"

Mr. Jones's sentiments set the tone for the day and ran like a thread throughout the sessions.

The three sessions I attended, on sustainable venture capital, carbon markets, and microfinance, all built on his three themes.

"Efficiency is key," said Diana Propper de Callejon of Expansion Capital Partners in the venture and private equity session. We need to figure out "how to pay people to conserve, to help utilities generate less and still make money."

Al Gore and David Blood (or "Blood & Gore," as moderator Stuart Davidson referred to them) closed the day's sessions speaking about their experiences at Generation Investment Management, the firm they launched five years ago.

Gore has settled into his role as climate statesman very well. And one can't help wondering where we'd be if the outcome in 2000 had been different. (Arguably, Gore has had more impact from his private sector approach than he would have had as president.)

Arguing for mainstreaming sustainability in all investing, Gore said, "There are a bunch of subprime carbon assets out there. If you or your portfolio manager have a lot of money tied up in subprime carbon assets -- lookout. They are about to collapse."

That comment sent the audience pulling out their iPhones and BlackBerrys. I'm looking for a bubble in caulking gun company stocks over the next quarter.

Clean Tech: ZapRoot Picks Apart the Pickens Plan

ZapRoot, which bills itself as "an unconventional bite-sized news show that covers the fast changing world of the modern Green Revolution."

Like other web tv news shows it's a little bit snarky, a little wacky, and treats you to little clips of humor that broadcast news shows could not get away with (see the "documentary footage" in the show below. Host Jessica Williamson is no Lindsay Campbell or Julie Alexandra, but her spunkiness may be infectious. (And oh, that accent...)

Here is Jessica on the Pickens Plan (and rumors that it may be a bait and switch play to get his hands on water):



I'm still picking through the Pickens Plan and Al Gore's latest call to action and will have a post to share my thoughts before the weekend (I hope; it's been a busy few weeks).

Here is the Pickens Plan video; judge for yourself:

Clean Tech: Kleiner Perkins raising a $400M-plus 'green growth' fund, says Venture Beat

Venture Beat reports that "Kleiner Perkins, the Silicon Valley venture capital firm that backed Google in its early days, is planning to raise a 'Green Growth' fund of more than $400 million, to invest in later-stage cleantech companies, according to PeHub.

"The move is a sign of the maturation and realities of the green technology industry. Many environment-related projects, including solar thermal, electric cars and bio-fuel manufacturing, require huge amounts of capital. Kleiner had earlier raised $200 million to invest in early-stage green companies, but it doesn’t have enough money to invest large chucks of cash in more mature companies as they move to manufacturing stage.

"According to the report, which we have yet to confirm, the firm may do select public investments, carveouts and spinouts.

"Kleiner has won considerable stature in the clean technology investing area, since hiring former Vice President Al Gore as a partner last year. Gore, a proponent of stronger measures to clean up the environment, won the Nobel Peace prize for his efforts. Apparently, Gore is among those leading the firm’s effort to raise the new fund."

According to PE Hub:

Al Gore is among those pitching it to [Kleiner’s] limited partners. During a recent LP meeting in New York, KP’s John Doerr reminded attendees that the firm had invested in the first commercial web browser just 14 years ago, which prompted Gore to caution Doerr against claiming credit for creating the Internet.

Doerr is expected to be involved in the project, but KP is also hiring a dedicated team with more experience in late-stage finance.

"They recently hired a team from the Goldman Sachs Special Situations Group that did the initial deals behind First Solar and Horizon Wind," says Anup Gupta, a partner with the Virgin Green Fund. "It was like a five-person team, [but] two left for Hudson Capital."

Is this an indication that Clean Tech and Green Tech is here to stay? We hope so. Bring on the New Green Economy.

Green is Good, baby.

Global Climate Change: Al Gore and Bono Interviewed by Thomas Friedman at Davos

New York Times columnist Thomas "The World is Flat" Friedman interviews Al "Invented Climate Change and the Internet" Gore and U2's (Not Sonny) Bono at WEF in Davos regarding possible marriage between the climate change and poverty alleviation agendas. We have to ask, what's the pre-nup look like? Worth a look:



(Sorry about the nicknames; feeling ESPN-dprived this weekend.)

Philanthropy & Environmental Change: Why Gore Chose I-banking over Non-Profit

"It certainly was not for the money," writes Susan Raymond of the philanthropic consulting firm Changing Our World (see onPhilanthropy), since 100% of former Vice President Al Gore's salary will be donated to the Alliance for Climate Protection.

"Rather, Mr. Gore's new affiliation with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, announced on November 12, reflects the evolution, and even maturation, of the environment as a matter of for-profit markets rather than as a matter of nonprofit endeavor."

Readers of this blog know I have been skeptical about the ability of the philanthropic capital market to address the growing and pervasive environmental problems we face. Ms. Raymond, whose opinions I have quoted before, adds some numbers to the argument:

1.) On the nonprofit side and in the U.S., an estimated $6 billion flows to environmental causes. This represents more than a tripling of funding in the last 20 years. Still, that $6 billion represents just 2% of all philanthropic giving. An examination of the grant making of private foundations finds a similar pattern.

2.) In 1998, foundations made nearly 5000 grants to the environment totaling $455 million. By 2005, that had increased to 6500 grants for over $800 million. Yet, environment as a percentage of all grants remained at 5%, and the portion of total grant value only increased to 5% from 4.7%.

Now to the other side,

1.) The total value of the global environmental technologies market is $600 billion, 100 times the size of environmental philanthropy.

2.) Environmental technology and services companies represent over 1.4 million jobs in the U.S. in 115,000 private companies. And those markets are growing as the drive for environmental protection spurs innovation and new technologies.

But "technology is increasingly the least of the market," writes Raymond. "Pollution, water rights, and even biodiversity are themselves becoming financial markets....the market for SO2 allowances is valued at $4 billion, with swaps, puts and calls, and emissions allowances are used as collateral, being loaned or swapped for other pollutants. And pollution? In the U.S. SO2 emissions are on track to fall to half their 1980 levels by 2010."

Raymond goes on to note that "some financial observers expect the environmental commodities market to have a valuation of $1 trillion by the end of 2012."

Payments for ecosystem benefits is also making progress, albeit slowly. Raymond cites a Costa Rican example, wherein "forest owners are paid for the environmental services provided by their bio-assets, carbon, biodiversity, watershed management, and natural beauty. In the decade 1996 to 2005, the program preserved the forests and increased household income by 15%."

And, as I've reported previously, some big name players, such as David Brand, founder of New Forests Pty Limited, and Priceline.com co-founder Jessie Fink, are getting into the game.

This is not to say that the non-profit approach to environmental change is dead in the water. But I think it's important to take notice of the emerging market being created from the intersection of financial innovation and environmental private action.

If it all leads to an accelerated response to global environmental issues -- water, climate change, or biodiversity loss -- then perhaps the market herd will move to greener pastures.

Clean Tech: Al Gore Joins Kleiner Perkins as Partner

VentureBeat reports that Al Gore has joined Kleiner Perkins, the well-known venture capital firm that backed Google, Netscape, Sun, Amazon and many others.

Former Vice President and Nobel laureate Al Gore will join Kleiner Perkins as a partner, in what VentureBeat says is a "continued effort to ramp up its investments in the area of green technology. It’s the firm’s latest big name addition. It hired former Secretary of State Colin Powell two years go, and has an arrangement with former eBay executive and California politician Steve Westly, who works out of the firm’s back office."

"There’s an exclusive story in Fortune about Gore’s move, which contains a detailed description of the collaboration between Gore and Kleiner’s leading partner John Doerr. It’s a great piece, written in the classic, engaging style of author Adam Lashinsky." Here’s the opening, as quoted by VentureBeat:

After “a conversation that’s gone on for a year and a half,” according to Gore, he has decided to join his old pal [Kleiner Partner] John Doerr as an active, hands-on partner at Kleiner Perkins, Silicon Valley’s preeminent venture firm.

The move is more than another Colin Powell moment (the former Secretary of State signed on as a Kleiner “strategic limited partner” two years ago and has hardly been heard from since). Gore is joining the firm as Kleiner makes a risky move beyond information technology and health-care investing into the fast-growing and increasingly competitive arena of “clean technology.”

According to Doerr, by 2009 more than a third of Kleiner’s latest fund, which was raised in 2006 and totals $600 million, will be invested in technologies that aim to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Already Kleiner has invested more than $270 million from various funds in 26 companies that make everything from microbes that scrub old oil wells to electric cars to noncorn ethanol. Twelve of Kleiner’s 22 partners now spend some or all of their time on green investments.

"Doerr, in turn will join the advisory board of Generation Investment Management, the $1 billion investment company Gore started three years ago in London with David Blood — to invest in publicly traded “sustainable” companies, and Lashinsky’s piece has more."

Read the full article: VentureBeat

Global Climate Change: Can Gore-UN Panel Nobel Prize Tip New Green Economy?

Arguably, no one has done more over the past few years to elevate the issue of global climate change than Al Gore. Except perhaps the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Now Mr. Gore and the UN panel are sharing the Nobel Peace Prize. Does this mean climate change, the issue, has reached the big time?

A larger question on my mind is: Will this recognition help us get our act together to do something about it?

Let's hope that someday the winner of the Nobel in Economics is the person who figures out how to address climate change action by transforming the global economy into something sustainable, profitable, and green.

A new green economy.

We need to make this moment the tipping point to turn green into gold.

Global Climate Change: Gore, Climate Activist, Head Contenders for Nobel Peace Prize

Bloomberg.com reports that Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and Canadian activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier are among contenders for this year's Nobel Peace Prize for campaigning about the threat of climate change, according to Stein Toennesson, director of the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo.

Buddhist monk Thich Quang Do, former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari and humanitarian group Save the Children may also be among the 181 nominations for the 10 million-krona ($1.5 million) prize, Toennesson said in an interview. The winner is announced by the Norwegian Nobel Committee tomorrow.

Bangladesh's Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank won last year for advancing social and economic development by giving loans to the poor. Wangari Maathai, Mother Theresa, Aung San Suu Kyi, and the Dalai Lama are among past recipients.

Read the complete article: Nobel Gore?

See link for more on the Nobel Peace Prize