10 Favs; 10 Years: "What Keeps You Up at Night?"

Back in November 2009, Lou Rappaport of Blank Rome asked me a disturbing question at the MAC Alliance Conference in Philadelphia.

Here's the post I wrote in response to his question:


On the face of it, Lou's question was a simple one:

"What keeps you up at night?"

We were interrupted before I could answer, but Lou's question lingered with me.

In fact, it kept me up the past couple of nights.

By way of an answer now, here are seven things that keep me up at night:

1.) We will fail to embrace change and tackle the new green economy.

2.) We are so deeply entrenched in partisan politics that we will blow this opportunity to lead in a sector (alternative energy) that we invented.

3.) The Dems have made climate and energy a "left" issue and the right has ceded it to them. Where is the GOP leadership stepping up to fill the void on these issues?*

4.) Enviros and NIMBYs will kill the energy economy transformation by blocking efforts on clean coal, nuclear, natural gas exploration, and the new electric grid just as they did with wind farms and offshore drilling.

5.) We don't have time to dither, yet we are a nation of inveterate ditherers.

6.) While we dither and dawdle, China is ready to seize the day.

7.) I don't know Mandarin.

____________________________________________
*(Note: This is deeply disappointing for the party of Teddy Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, which once led on issues now considered clean and green – and that now seems blind to this incredible opportunity for wealth generation.)

Power to the People: EY's Renewable Energy Index Ranks Country Attractiveness

For the past ten years, Ernst & Young has published a quarterly index analyzing the attractiveness of countries around the world for developing renewable energy.

Called the Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index (or RECAI, for short), the index has provided a barometer of the renewable energy sector.

Established in 2003, the quarterly publication ranks 40 countries for their "attractiveness" of renewable energy investment and deployment.

The latest edition of the RECAI cites energy demand, natural resource, technology costs, access to finance, and global competitiveness as key influences for investors.

Global annual clean energy investment totaled US$269b in 2012, representing a five-fold increase on 2004, according to the report. And the sector is now becoming competitive with more traditional fossil fuel energy sources.

New and improved technologies, such as cheaper, more efficient solar panels, biomass boilers, and even small wind turbines, are those technologies cited by the Index that allow energy users to generate their own power where and when they need it.

This "democratization" of energy sources provides greater flexibility when it comes to energy generation and management.

The latest RECAI includes a revised, updated methodology reflecting shifts in investment drivers and the sector's maturing since the report’s creation 10 years ago.

An increased focus on the role renewable energy plays in each country’s energy mix, energy supply and demand, and the cost competitiveness of renewable energy, are some of the changes reflected in the new methodology, according to its editors.

As with other country attractiveness indices, EY has also adopted an increased emphasis on the economic and political stability of each particular market.

"Market fundamentals, such as energy demand growth, security of energy supply and the affordability of renewable energy, feature as some of the most prominent drivers of renewable energy growth today," says RECAI's chief editor Ben Warren.

"Our revised methodology allows us to analyze each market's investment attractiveness much more effectively by considering these factors and weighting them accordingly," claims Warren, who serves as Ernst & Young UK Energy and Environmental Finance Leader and Global Cleantech Transactions Leader.

The revised index sees the US regain the top spot in terms of attractiveness, as high barriers to entry for external investors realign China into second place.

Despite that change, the RECAI finds prospects for growth for the sector in China remain strong with continued GDP growth, increasing energy demand, and the ongoing strategic importance of the sector to the local economy providing solid foundations for the future.

You can download the latest RECAI at www.ey.com/recai

(Disclosure: The author is marketing director for EY's Global Cleantech Center, which is one of the sponsors of the RECAI.)

Is Cleantech a Dirty Word?

He used the "C" word.

"Is Cleantech a dirty word?"

I was asked this question over lunch today -- it's something that comes up regularly, like some disagreeable food.

Just a few months ago, when we began planning for our 5th annual Mid-Atlantic Cleantech Investment Forum, my friends and co-hosts at BlankRome's Venture Group announced that we were changing the name of the event to Mid-Atlantic Energy Technology Investment Forum. 

They even asked whether we were changing the name of our group, Cleantech Alliance Mid-Atlantic. My co-founder hedged and said we'd discuss it later.

Adam Lesser, writing over at Giga.om last month, asked, "Does the 'cleantech sector' need a new name?" 

"'Cleantech' is a dirty word right now in venture investing circles," Lesser posits. "And for me has never defined a sector as much as an idea—that we should leverage technology for the betterment of the earth." 

Over the past few years, we've had "clean energy" and "advanced energy"; once the favored term was "renewable energy" and even "alternative energy." And then there was the battle over "cleantech" or "greentech." And now there's even something called "cleanweb."

A year ago, Lesser's colleague at GigaOm, Katie Fehrenbacher asked whether it was time to bury the term.

Even as far back in September 2011, I wrote about Cleantech having a black eye and branding problem. (Longtime cleantech investor John Doerr referred to "Energy Tech," at an event I was covering.)

The question remains whether this is just a down cycle for cleantech.

Is the sky falling for cleantech, as I asked in a post last summer?

Or are we, as an investor friend of mine suggested six months ago, simply in Gartner's trough of disillusionment, shortly to be ascending the slope of enlightenment?

For now, I'm sticking with the "C" word. Get out the Lifebuoy!

BizVoice Interview with The Green Skeptic

A few months ago, I was interviewed by Tom Schurman for BizVoice, a publication of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, on the subject of clean energy, green jobs, and the difficult balancing act of the green movement overall.

Here is a link to a PDF of the BizVoice article "Balancing Act."

Pass or Fail? Obama's State of the Union and Clean Energy Future

Did President Obama pass or fail on energy in last night's State of the Union address?  I wasn't watching, but I've read the transcript.  Here are some of the choice bits:

"We can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products."

Totally agree. We are already losing the clean energy race and need to do a lot to catch up.

"We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America."

Okay. A little protectionism, a little nod to a giving something back to Americans for investing in efficiency.

"I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing, even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future, because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation."

I'm not sure passing the current Senate effort is the right thing to do. I think cap-and-trade is dead on arrival now and we need to shift the focus on innovation and investment. The important phrase in the above remark is

"...the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy."

Can we get there? I'm not convinced we have the political will or that Obama can carry the day. His approval rating sucks and new polls are pointing to a continuing decrease in belief among Americans in climate change. But I do agree that we can't afford to wait any longer, as the President put it last night

"China's not waiting to revamp its economy; Germany's not waiting; India's not waiting. These nations, they're not standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs."

The President also said he does not "accept second place for the United States of America." Second place? In many respects we are already in third and the leaders are pulling away.

And we're not going to get there without massive investment in innovation, as Bill Gates said in his blog last week, we need "a distributed system of R&D with economic rewards for innovators and strong government encouragement is the key. There just isn't enough work going on today to get us to where we need to go."

I disagree with Gates that it is either efficiency or innovation; this is a false dichotomy. We need to fire on all cylinders. Just as with the President's nods to nuclear, offshore drilling, and "clean coal" last night, which were not just bones to GOP dogs, we need to deploy all solutions --and now.

I'm just not sure whether President Obama, rhetorical skills aside, has the political capital to wrangle the support he needs to make the necessary bold steps.

As for the speech, I give him a B-.

Green Skeptic on Job Creation: FoxBusiness

I was on FoxBusiness yesterday, talking with Stuart Varney about the green jobs number that has come out from the Obama administration.

There were three points I wanted to make on the subject:

1.) What qualifies as a green job? What counts? We need a clear definition to determine whether the accounting is accurate and the impact is greatest.
2.) Only $5B of the $90B stimulus commitment to clean energy has moved thus far. How can we more efficiently move that capital to put it to work?
3.) Lack of manufacturing base for clean energy in the US calls into question the number and quality of the jobs that will be created here in the US. Will they be just service-oriented? Will that have significant impact on the larger economy?

You can judge for yourself whether I succeeded. Let me know what you think.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Report: Obama Skews Stimulus Jobs Count (visionaryrealtynews.com)
• Obama Announces New Tax Credits For Green Jobs (treehugger.com)
• Sec. Hilda Solis: Green Jobs: A Down Payment on the Workforce of Tomorrow (huffingtonpost.com)
• U.S. Energy Dept. kicks off 2010 with billions for cleantech (green.venturebeat.com)
• STIMULUS WATCH: White House Changes Job-Count Rule (abcnews.go.com)
• Obama unveils $2.3 billion for clean energy jobs (money.cnn.com)