Clean Tech: Pennsylvania Gets $650M+ Alternative and Renewable Energy Fund

Let's here it for the home state!

When Kathleen McGinty, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, told to me a few weeks ago that Pennsylvania was "actually now leading the country in manufacturing renewable energy technology, housing the world's leading companies in renewables," I remained skeptical, if hopeful.

Secretary McGinty backed up her statement by listing the companies: Gamesa, Iberdrola, Conergy, AE Polysilicon, Solar Power Industries, Axion, and Bionol, among others, have all become PA companies and major investors in the Commonwealth in the last 3 years.

"We are first in the country now in growth in manufacturing and first in job creation in venture-backed enterprises," Katie said. But, she added, there was a still a long way to go.

Key, she thought, was Governor Ed Rendell's Energy Independence Strategy (EIS) to spur further growth and development in the Commonwealth.

Now, Pennsylvania is making a $665.9 million investment to spur the development of alternative and renewable energy technologies and help customers and small businesses take steps to reduce their electricity consumption and save money.

Together the Alternative Energy Investment Fund and the Alternative Fuels Investment Fund will target $237.5 million specifically toward helping consumers conserve electricity and manage higher energy prices, and $428.4 million to spur the development of alternative energy resources and create good-paying, skilled jobs for Pennsylvania’s hard-working men and women.

Included among the new $650 million fund is $500 million that provides:

* $165 million for loans and grants to spur the development of alternative and renewable energy projects (except solar) among businesses and local governments;
* $100 million to provide loans, grants and rebates that cover up to 35 percent of the costs residential consumers and small businesses incur for installing for solar energy technology;
* $80 million in grants and loans for economic development projects in the solar sector;
* $40 million to the Ben Franklin Technology Development Authority to support early stage activities, such as incubator support services, translational and early stage research in startup businesses that develop and implement energy efficiency technologies;
* $25 million for wind energy and geothermal projects;
* $25 million for green buildings. Homeowners and small businesses will benefit from grants and loans to build energy efficient structures or renovate an existing building to improve its energy efficiency;
* $40 million ($10 million annually for four years) to support LIHEAP so the commonwealth can help low-income customers manage higher energy prices, severe weather conditions, or disasters; and
* $25 million for pollution control technology to help energy generators meet state and federal standards.

Under the alternative fuels law, every gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel sold in Pennsylvania must contain a percentage of biofuels, ramping up to 20 percent biodiesel and 10 percent ethanol once in-state production reaches certain levels.

"This new investment fund will strategically target new resources to leverage as much as $3.5 billion in private investment and create at least 13,000 new, good-paying jobs in an industry that is sure to be to the 21st century what information technology and biosciences were to the later 20th century," the Governor said in a press statement.

Makes me proud to say I live in Pennsylvania, the State of Independence and perhaps the new green economy.

Congratulations, Governor Rendell and Secretary McGinty -- and all Pennsylvanians.

Watch Governor Rendell's announcement of the Fund here

Reblogging: A Call for "Interdependence Day" from 2005

I'm reblogging an old post today, because it's Independence Day and our last day in Alaska. Back to regular posting after the weekend. Happy 4th! Here is my Independence Day post from 2005:

Today is Independence Day in the U.S. and folks all over this land are wondering if Americans will stand up and declare their energy independence. Where’s the group that will call for a rethink of America’s energy policies?

It turns out a number of groups are calling for adjustments to the Bush energy policy; and one coalition has even created a “Declaration of Energy Independence,” which starts off humorously enough but then just turns into an attack on Ford, one of the US companies that actually has developed a hybrid. That’s where they lose me.

“I know that America can do better than another oil dominated energy policy, and I want real investments in new energy now,” begins the petition to Bush posted by the Apollo Alliance “I call on you to find the courage, vision, and common sense to reject big-oil dominated energy legislation which makes us more dependent on foreign oil.”

Then Apollo asks for an energy policy that commits to investments in energy conservation, new energy industries, and re-tooling for high-performance energy efficiency, and pollution reducing technologies. Okay, I can buy that. Such investments will help fuel our new economy -- one we desperately need.

They also post three speeches by Senators Cantwell, Durban, and Dorgan who came out in support of American Energy Independence. This in the wake of polls indicating, "9 in 10 Americans support a crash effort for reducing dependence on Middle East oil." They are politicians, of course, but make some interesting points.

Finally, “Set America Free” – a coalition of individuals, NGOs, and others have put forth a “Blueprint for U.S. Energy Security” that’s worth a look.

But all this makes me wonder: is it really energy independence we want or energy interdependence? Perhaps, as Pietro Nivola claimed in his 2002 essay in the Brookings Review, "Instead of futile planning to quarantine 'foreign energy providers,' U.S. policy should seek deeper integration with some of them, especially the ones next door."

We aren't going to be able to fill the gaps left by turning off the taps of foreign oil, not immediately at least; and some of our investments overseas are helping people get a leg up rather than fueling resentment towards America. Like it or not, even in the estimates of some of the most progressive economists, we're going to continue to need oil from other nations. In other words, let's be real about energy while asking Bush and the G8 to get real on climate change and poverty.

And this Independence Day, let’s recognize that we’re not alone in the world and call for a new Declaration of Interdependence -– on energy, the environment, and the global economy.

Book Review: Power of the People: America's New Electricity Choices by Carol Sue Tombari

Imported oil, dirty coal, energy inefficiencies and waste, and truncated investment in alternative energy development have landed us in a quandary. Where do we turn for the power we need to run our wired and wireless economy and our increasingly mobile culture?

Carol Sue Tombari, former director of the State of Texas's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and currently on staff at the US Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, describes some answers in her new book, Power of the People: America's New Electricity Choices.

Tombari provides a concise and cogent overview of how we got in this mess and a primer for how we can get out of it. Essentially, Tombari argues that we need a combination of vigorous policy agendas and massive investments in what we've called on this blog "The New Green Economy."

We are "sleepwalking toward disaster," argues the author, but she tempers her cynicism with equal doses of optimism and faith -- faith that we have the know-how and ingenuity to get us out of this mess.

If only we would wake up and change where we're going and what we're doing.

"I'm not talking about an overnight energy revolution, Tombari concludes. "Really, it's more like an evolution, incorporating both twentieth- and twenty-first-century technologies as we transition to the completely different, carbon-constrained reality in the coming years."

For anyone who wants a quick study of the path we've been on, as well as the good, the bad, and the balance of those choices, and the potential for alternatives, Power of the People is required reading.

"Renewable energy and energy efficiency can be expected to develop a larger presence in the marketplace," writes Tombari, "especially as the cost of twentieth-century fuels continues to go up and the capital costs of renewables continue to go down."

But our energy "needs remain humongous and continue to grow," Tombari argues. "Energy efficiency in particular will gain significantly greater market share because of its no-regrets nature and the fact that it doesn't require the investment of materials needed by utility-scale technologies."

While "we will continue to rely heavily on central station power plants, especially in the near- and mid-term," according to Tombari, "we as individuals, as neighbors, as citizens of our towns and states, can lead our government...Our roots as a nation are in the grass. We know how to do this."

Her optimism is infectious. Power of the People is a must-read for anyone concerned about the future of our nation and our planet.

Clean Tech: Gary Kremen's Latest Hot Match, Solar

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Global Climate Change: Times' Kristof Challenges Bush and Candidates on Climate

Nicholas Kristof challenges President Bush's latest statement about climate change in today's New York Times. According to his Facebook page, he was inspired to write the opinion piece by a recent study in the journal Nature, titled "Dangerous Assumptions" by Roger Pielke, Jr, Tom Wigley, and Christopher Green.

"Imagine if President Bush announced a plan for Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs that declared: They will cease accumulating nuclear weapons by 2025. We will accomplish this through incentives and voluntary action, without mandates.

"Mr. Bush would be ridiculed, but in essence, that’s the plan he announced for climate change on Wednesday. He set a target for halting the growth in carbon dioxide emissions by 2025, without specific mandates to achieve that, and in the meantime he blasted proposed Senate legislation for tougher measures as unnecessary.

"Unnecessary? When scientists detect accelerating melting in the Arctic and confidently predict centuries of coastal retreats and climate shifts, endangering the only planet we have?"

Kristof closes his piece with a call for a new green economy, even if he doesn't call it that:

"So the next president should start a $20 billion-a-year program (financed by a pullout from Iraq) to develop new energy technologies, backed by a carbon tax and cap-and-trade system. Each of the presidential candidates favors some form of a cap-and-trade and would mark a step forward from President Bush’s passivity — although John McCain’s recent proposal for a summer holiday from the gas tax would be a deplorable step in exactly the wrong direction, unless he hopes to turn his land in Arizona into coastal property.

"The bottom line is that none of the candidates focus adequately on climate change, for this will be one of humanity’s great tests in the coming decades — and so far we’re failing."

Read the full opinion piece here: Kristof

Clean Tech: Sen. Finance Committee Adds Renewable Energy Tax Credits to Stimulus Bill

Last Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee included measures to extend the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for renewable energy through the end of the 2009 in its version of an economic stimulus package originally proposed by President Bush.

Under the Committee's bill, wind companies would receive a tax credit, currently 2 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, for each new wind turbine that goes into operation through 2009.

The tax credit, which also would apply to electricity from solar, geothermal and other sources as well as energy-efficiency rebates, would cost approximately US$5.5 billion. The measures were introduced to the committee by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).

"Renewable energy production depends on investment," Grassley said. "Investors need certainty. They won't put their money out for a wind energy facility unless there's a reasonable expectation that tax incentives will continue into the future. For energy needs and for economic growth, we need to continue renewable energy provisions without interruption."

The bill would also extend for one year a credit, equal to 30 percent of qualifying expenditures, for the purchase for qualified photovoltaic (PV) property and solar water heating property used exclusively for purposes other than heating swimming pools and hot tubs.

The proposal extends the energy-efficient existing homes credit, extends the tax credit for the production of energy efficient appliances for two years, extends a credit to holders of clean renewable energy bonds, includes a deduction for energy-efficient commercial buildings, a credit for the construction of new energy-efficient homes and a credit for residential energy efficient property.

It is being reported that the Finance Committee's version of the stimulus package bill may face opposition in the Senate and from the White House.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) applauded the Finance Committee bill. According to AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher, the bill will be a benefit to wind industry.

"The extension of the production tax credit (PTC) is urgently needed to protect tens of thousands of U.S. manufacturing and construction jobs and create tens of thousands more, and to keep investment flowing into one of the fastest-growing and brightest sectors of our economy: renewable electricity," Swisher said.

"We urge the full U.S. Senate to move quickly to adopt the Finance Committee stimulus package that includes the PTC extension," Swisher continued. "Rapid action is pivotal if wind, solar and other renewable energy industries are to continue to grow, attract large-scale manufacturing investment and create jobs for Americans across the country."

Update: A vote in the Senate on the package has been delayed until next week. The Senate will wait until after the Super Tuesday primaries as Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) are all currently campaining in thier bids for the presidency. -- from Renewable Energy Access

Economic Stimulus or Styptic Pencil? Invest My 600 Bucks in New Clean Economy, Mr. Bush

With all due respect to Messrs Bush, Paulson, and...well, Bernanke too, I suppose, this economic stimulus seems more like a styptic pencil. You know, those things used to temporarily stop bleeding from shaving cuts and the like? If BPB really wanted to stop the bleeding, US leaders would accelerate investments into creating a new, clean economy.

I'm not alone in this thinking. The National Hydropower Association, Geothermal Energy Association, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), and American Wind Energy Association issued a joint statement earlier this week calling for an extension of long-term renewable energy tax credits as part of the US economic stimulus package.

The current stimulus package does not extend the renewable energy incentives, which expire at the end of this year. And that is too bad. Letting these incentives expire will potentially eliminate thousands of jobs and derail billions of dollars in future investments, according to sources close to the situation. All this when we're experiencing record private investment in alternative energy.

"2007 was a record year for renewable energy in the U.S. Almost 6,000 megawatts of new renewable energy came on line in 2007, infusing over $20 billion of investment into our economy," Rhone Resch, president of SEIA, told a packed house at the National Press Club the other day. "And along with this investment came jobs. In 2007, the renewable energy industries put Americans back to work, creating tens of thousands of high quality jobs in all 50 states. Jobs like electricians and plumbers, line workers, roofers, engineers, and high-paying manufacturing jobs. These jobs are the backbone of our economy in the U.S.

"But already these jobs and many more are at risk. The 2007 energy bill was passed in December with much fanfare, but without an extension of the renewable energy tax credits. Already we are seeing sales and new project announcements drop off. Large scale solar and wind projects take longer than a year to site, permit and construct. And with only 11 months to go before the credits expire, these projects have started drying up. Even larger concentrating solar, geothermal and hydro projects take many years to construct and will not get built without a long-term extension of the tax credits. If the renewable energy tax credits are allowed to expire, we will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the US."

"As leaders of four major renewable energy trade associations, we respectfully urge bipartisan Congressional Leadership and the President to work together to include renewable energy tax provisions in any economic stimulus legislation currently being developed," said Resch. "Renewable energy will put Americans back to work, provide reliable and domestic energy for homes and businesses, and spur billions of dollars of economic investment but only if Congress and the Administration take immediate action to extend the renewable energy tax credits."

I agree with Mr. Resch and his colleagues: If you're serious about stimulating the economy, Messrs BPB, perhaps it's time to seriously invest in a new, clean economy.


(Photo credit: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, left, and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke on Capitol Hill, September 20, 2007. AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)

Break Through: From Ashes of Environmentalism Comes Hope and Imagination?

Environmentalists have it all wrong.

We don't need no stinking limits, what we need is economic growth fueled by a massive investment in alternative energy that positively transforms the living standards of people around the world.

We need a new, new economy that is not based on what we can't do or shouldn't do, but on what we can do.

We need energy independence and ecological security. We need an agenda that puts investment, jobs, and economic growth front and center.

The spirit of possibility is at hand, we need only take it up -- and secure a front-loaded investment in R&D from the Department of Defense to get this thing moving.

Okay, I'll get off my soap box. Readers of The Green Skeptic are familiar enough with my thoughts on the matter.

Much of this kind of thinking runs through the pages of Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger's new book Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, which I've just finished.

You remember them? They got many pairs of green knickers in a twist with their essay calling for abandoning the environmental movement (and a few cheers from some of the more skeptical among us).

They've written an important book. Flawed, but important. And a little bipolar.

One the one hand, it's a much-needed critique of the way the environmental movement thinks and speaks of its issues. This follows logically on their original essay. And it is sort of in the vein of William Easterly and John Perkins' confessionals/attacks on their former selves.

I mean, these guys were strategists for some of the doom and gloomers; now they've seen the light and the error of their ways.

In terms of making change, their basic argument is that people rate the environment and global warming low on their list of concerns, relative to other concerns like economic security, terrorism, etc. And the enviros haven't been listening; they want to convince.

For example, Americans are more concerned by rising energy prices than the prospects of global warming. Yet the prevailing environmental messaging strategy calls for raising energy prices even higher through taxes and such. Certainly a disconnect there. Ya think?

But when it comes to providing hope beyond some flowery rhetoric, Nordhaus and Shellenberger offer very little new thinking.

A little pimping for their Apollo-style energy proposal, which was introduced into Congress by Representative Jay Inslee of Washington, and the authors are off on quite a few tangents about NIMBYism and facing the fact that we are now like Gods and we'd better get used to it.

The second half of the book could have used some heavy editing and shaping by the gang at Houghton-Mifflin. You can get by with a snarky attitude if you really have something to say, believe me. In the end, however, you have to bring your whole game.

I wanted a little more pragmatism in the chapter of that name. And what was the point of that attack on Francis Fukuyama in the final chapter? At times, such as in the clever analysis of how Tony Blair lost the war on global warming on the world stage, it seemed like a clever magazine article run amok.

The authors fall short in facing some of the realities of climate change. It is happening, will affect millions of people directly, and we will have to find a way to adapt and mitigate the severity, while making investments in technologies that will help us get there. (I felt they sold short the adaptation piece in particular, in the rush to push their investment agenda.)

That said, the authors rightly point out that to succeed in turning this around, we need remember what we're great at: "imagining, experimenting, and inventing the future."

We can imagine a better future if we set our minds to it. So what are we waiting for?

Clean Tech: A Mighty Wind Grows 45 Percent in '07

I realized today that I've been giving a lot of space to solar on this blog -- okay, I confess, my obsession with First Solar has been getting out of hand, especially in the first month of 2008! But as long as it holds above my initial position, I'll try to ignore those additional shares I bought before the tumble.

Then it came to my attention (thanks to Triple Pundit) that the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) last week reported record growth in wind power generation with 5,244 megawatts of capacity installed in 2007 – a 45 percent increase reflecting US$9 billion in investment and 30 percent of all new power generating capacity in 2007.

But not so fast. The same report notes that 2008 "will likely show growing pains as there is a current shortage of wind turbines, a situation that the AWEA sees as a big opportunity for manufacturers and entrepreneurs wishing to get in on a growing market. There’s always a better mouse trap – wind energy technology is ripe for imaginative innovators to not only fill the current need for parts, but to continually make those parts better."

TP adds: "It is also time for government to step up to the plate and push forward in support of alternative energy in a big way. Congress is debating this week the future of alternative energy tax credits set to expire this year with no current provision for renewal.

"While the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 recently signed in Congress does provide $2 billion dollars in research for alternative energy, it still pales in comparison to subsidies given the fossil fuel industry.

"Farmers also have a great opportunity to capitalize on wind power generation, 'growing' energy from wind and leaving their corn for food instead of ethanol. After all, not all alternative energy is created equal."

Okay, I feel better now. It's not all solar and I'll try to give equal time to the other alternatives. (Thanks, TP)

Pass the sunscreen someone...anyone.

Energy: House Sends Bush Energy Bill to Sign

President Bush is to sign a compromise Energy Bill (HR6) this morning, which will help reduce US dependence on foreign oil and scratch the surface on climate change impacts by cutting about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say the US must slash.

Highlights of the Bill:

-New auto fleets must average 35 miles/gallon by 2020 -- a 40 percent increase in fuel-efficiency standards

-Mandate use of 36 billion gallons/year of ethanol and other biofuels by 2022, a six-fold increase over today's ethanol production.

-Phase-out conventional incandescent light bulbs by mid-teens, replaced with CFs and LEDs.

Those of us interested in alternative energy development were disappointed by the failure of congressional supporters to roll back US$13.5 billion in tax breaks for oil companies. The savings were to be used to create incentives for wind, solar and biomass energy development, as well as energy conservation.

The Bill actually represents the first increase in auto fuel economy since 1975 and the compromises made on both sides represents a true bi-partisan effort. So the House, Senate, and President Bush should be applauded for making this happen.

Clean Tech: Wind Some, Lose Some

Why do people hate wind farms?

Sure they are huge; the turbines have a large footprint, and may even chop up a few birds. But they also generate a heck of a lot of power, and are comparatively free from negative environmental impacts.

From a design perspective the sleek white towers and aerodynamic blades seem, well, elegant and forward-looking.

It's clear that opinions about wind farms, however, blow whichever way the wind does.

When I was visiting some friends in northern New York late in the summer, I learned about objections to the St. Lawrence Windpower project, a project of ACCIONA SA (Other OTC:ACXIF.PK). Even my friends don't want it and speculated about graft and insider deals going on behind the scenes. (I couldn't corroborate any of the latter.)

The project is supported by many small, family farmers in the area as a source of additional income. Objections stem from many weekenders and locals who claim the farms will spoil their viewsheds, interfere with migratory bird patterns, create excessive ambient sound -- there are even some outrageous claims that wind turbines cause cancer or sterility.

Who's right? It's hard to say.

There seems to be little evidence that birds are victims of wind turbines and, as for the other claims, the jury is out on whether turbines or transformers can lead to physical ailments beyond certain setbacks.

But the debate keeps getting more charged.

This week, two developments speak to the complicated business of wind farms. And, for those of us who want the US economy to fully embrace alternatives, it's a one-two punch between China and our own backyard(s).

On the one hand, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) announced plans to venture into renewable energy with the first off-shore wind farm in China. The project will be situated 37 miles from shore, in the Bohai Bay, home of a significant part of the company's oil production, according to CNOOC president Fu Chengyu.

It's a welcome move by CNOOC (NYSE:CEO), which needs to diversify beyond oil, something also much needed in a country where cleaner growth is a top priority of its leaders. And there will likely be more of a push for such clean tech moves in China in the wake of the pending environmental embarrassment of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Why offshore? Offshore wind generation is more expensive, but has greater capacity. On land, siting is critical; you need enough open space, unobstructed wind patterns, and minimal interference by the natural or built environments. On the open water, it is easier to capture sustained, higher wind speeds; there less surface resistance, especially in deep water.

But on sea as on land, it turns out, you still get a "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) reaction.

This week in Massachusetts, the Cape Cod Commission denied Cape Wind's application to bury electric cables in Nantucket Sound. The company needs to lay the cables on the Sound floor to connect its proposed 420-megawatt offshore wind farm to the state power grid.

Cape Wind plans to challenge the Commission's decision; the Commission said it did not have enough information to make a decision. The proposed wind farm will consist of 130 GE 3.6 megawatt wind turbines, capable of supplying most of the electricity needed in Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket combined.

So what's holding it up? Although the farm will be located more than 5 miles away from the Cape Cod coast, the turbines will stand -- from blade tip to water's surface approximately 440 feet -- and the transmission lines connecting the project to the grid crosses land controlled by state and local authorities.

Among those who object to the project: Senator Ted Kennedy, who along with other residents, claims he will see the wind farm from his coastal complex. Some extreme environmental groups also object to the project, on the grounds that migratory bird and sea life patterns may be disrupted.

Supporters, among them even some green groups, posit that the benefits outweigh the losses, among them renewable energy, improved air quality, lower electricity bills, and added security and reliability for the Northeast power grid. And even Audubon has discounted the impact on birds.

A recent global wind mapping project may help guide where to site wind farms for maximum return in the future. But what happens when a Nantucket Sound or the St. Lawrence Seaway makes the top of the list?

That question is a complicated one, and it often involves some big, influential neighbors.

But the larger question is do we want to invest in alternative energy or do we want to continue to rely on foreign oil, domestic coal, and other polluting sources?

With oil flirting with $90, it seems imperative to put our objections to rest and start turning ill-winds into gains.

Global Climate Change: Seizing the Day on Climate Change

What do we need to do to take action on climate change in the current climate of heightened awareness? A session I organized at the ELP/NJIT Climate Change Conference, "Emerging Leaders, Emerging Solutions" tried to address that question.

The panel, "Seizing the Day: What We Need to Do to Take Advantage of Climate Change Awareness and Move to Action," fostered a robust conversation moderated by Eugene Linden, whose book Winds of Change is one of two essential books on the issue (the other is Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers).

Baruch Fischhoff from Carnegie Mellon kicked off our discussion after Eugene's insightful remarks. He identified a clear need for more social science research on the issue and its frame. He also reminded us that it is more difficult to achieve cognitive mastery over the "solution space" than the awareness of the problem. In addition, I found his remarks on the personal nature of choice to take action very insightful, as was his reminder that if people feel they are being manipulated or taken advantage of awareness of the issue may be hard to sustain.

Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate.org suggested that we need to pay attention to the way the issue is framed and avoid allowing the frame to be changed from a science discussion to a "freedom of speech issue." This was one of a number of valuable insights Gavin offered from the trenches of the science "debate."

Trina Chattoraj Mallik of The Climate Group offered her perspective on the nature of conversations and innovative solutions coming out of the corporate sector. Especially valuable were her insights on how corporations are now viewing this issue as a strategic growth opportunity and the importance that will play in the future.

Gary Guzy from Marsh took a look back at the "radical enterprise" of "environmental and public health protection," drawing on his experience at the EPA under Clinton and his coming of age during the era of proliferation of important protections and laws. He also took stock of the corporate environment where the climate change has moved from compliance issue to a C-suite opportunity.

Finally, Jacky Grimshaw highlighted the impacts at the municipal and national level as cities and communities seek to set baseline data to measure progress on reductions. In particular, the Center for Neighborhood Technology's efforts to develop technology to help cities collect and track their data.

The bottom line? We need a variety of approaches from a variety of sectors and partnerships to define and implement solutions, we need to demonstrate how choices don't have to be onerous, and we need a more scientific approach to how we make choices about solutions for which we need more research and less intuition.

Global Climate Change: Hail the Chief; Bush Has a Plan for Carbon Reduction

In a bold move (critics would say an "about-face," but it's not really), US President George W. Bush outlined his plan for reducing global carbon emissions. He urged 15 major countries to agree by the end of next year on a global emissions goal for reducing greenhouse gases.

He wants a series of meetings to begin this fall and to include countries such as China and India, as well as major European nations and the United States.

Some say this is a salvo designed and timed to get ahead of criticism the Bush administration was likely to receive at next week's Group of 8 (G8) Summit in Germany. Climate change is to be a leading topic on the agenda there.

But President Bush said, in announcing his plan, "The new initiative I'm outlining today will contribute to the important dialogue that will take place in Germany next week."

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair applauded President Bush's announcement on climate change as "a huge step forward," saying also that the true "significance of this is America accepting this is a real problem now, accepting it's got to offer real leadership on this issue and being prepared to be part of a global deal at the heart of which will be the reduction of emissions."

Environmentalists from World Wildlife Fund and liberal advocacy group Center for American Progress attacked Bush for "trying to leapfrog next week's summit" and push "aiming for 2008." In an extreme reaction, one critic claimed it was "morally unacceptable" for Bush to preempt the G8.

But according to people familiar with the situation, Bush has had not so much a conversion on the issue of climate change as his thinking has evolved. Bush himself said today in his remarks that "science has deepened our understanding of climate change and opened new possibilities for confronting it."

He went on to suggest that "the United States will work with other nations to establish a new framework on greenhouse gas emissions for when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012."

Let's hope the critics are wrong on this one and that the G8 meeting will be a productive next step, following on the heals of the President's proposal.

Read President Bush's full remarks to the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign

Global Climate Change: Energy Giant Backs Climate Trading at APEC Forum

Angela MacDonald-Smith of Bloomberg News reports that Russell Caplan, chairman of Royal Dutch Shell in Australia called for global carbon trading to set a price on carbon and allow for investments in new energy-supply projects while reducing emissions. According to the article, which appeared in yesterday's International Herald Tribune, Caplan said Monday at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation energy business forum in Darwin, "that while the European Union's carbon trading system is 'a good start,' a worldwide plan is required."

"'Market mechanisms are likely to be the most effective means of implementing change,' Caplan said at the forum. 'Trading needs to become global to become truly effective and establish a clear market price for CO2 that will be factored into the investment evaluations of the new technologies and energy conservation measures that we need for a low-carbon future.'"

Read the full article here: Energy

Access Mr. Caplan's speech: Caplan

Global Climate Change: Clinton Unveils US$5 bn City Retrofit Plan

For years when I lived in New York City, I often marvelled at the fact that my apartment and office windows had to be opened all winter long. It was just too damned hot in the buildings and the heat couldn't be regulated (at least not by tenants) to maintain a comfortable level. It's been over a decade since I lived in the city, but when I was there for a climate change meeting in February, I found that not much had changed.

The heat was oppressive in the conference room where we sat in a Midtown office building. First one participant opened a window, then another, and another. I don't think any of us thought about the irony of what we were doing. But after the meeting, I kept thinking, how much energy was being wasted all over the city? It must be staggering if you calculate offices and housing stock in Manhattan alone. What would it take to retrofit a city like New York?

Now former president Bill Clinton is proposing to answer that question. Yesterday, Clinton announced the creation of a global energy efficiency building retrofit program, bringing together four of the world’s largest energy service companies, five of the world’s largest banks, and fifteen of the world’s largest cities in a landmark program designed to reduce energy consumption in existing buildings.

"Climate change is a global problem that requires local action," said President Clinton in a press release. "The businesses, banks and cities partnering with my foundation are addressing the issue of global warming because it's the right thing to do, but also because it's good for their bottom line. They're going to save money, make money, create jobs and have a tremendous collective impact on climate change all at once."

According to the press release generated by the Clinton Foundation, "Urban areas are responsible for approximately 75 percent of all energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Buildings account for nearly 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and in cities such as New York and London this figure is close to 70 percent."

Under the Clinton program cities and their private building owners access to the necessary funds to retrofit existing buildings with more energy efficient products, typically leading to energy savings between 20 to 50 percent.

According to the Clinton Foundation, companies Honeywell, Johnson Controls, Inc, Siemens and Trane will conduct energy audits, perform building retrofits, and guarantee the energy savings of the retrofit projects.

ABN AMRO, Citi, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, and UBS have committed to arrange $1 billion each to finance cities and private building owners to undertake these retrofits at no net cost, doubling the global market for energy retrofit in buildings.

These banks will work alongside energy efficiency finance specialist Hannon Armstrong and the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) to develop effective mechanisms to deploy this capital globally, reports the release. Cities and building owners will pay back the loans plus interest with the energy savings generated by the reduced energy costs generated by the building retrofits.

An initial group of fifteen of the world’s largest cities has agreed to participate in the retrofit program, and offer their municipal buildings for the first round of energy retrofits: Bangkok, Berlin, Chicago, Houston, Johannesburg, Karachi, London, Melbourne, Mexico City, New York, Rome, Sao Paulo, Seoul, Tokyo, and Toronto.

As part of the Energy Efficiency Building Retrofit Program, the cities have agreed to make their municipal buildings more energy efficient and provide incentives for private building owners to retrofit their buildings with energy saving technologies.

"Mayors are responsible for coming up with pragmatic solutions and implementing them effectively – and this program will allow us to do that," said New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. "We've laid out an ambitious agenda to reduce our carbon emissions, 80 percent of which come from buildings, while being economically competitive and continuing to grow."

Mayor of London Ken Livingstone, Chair of the C40, said, "Fifteen cities have already signed up to take advantage of this initiative and I am confident many more will follow."

CCI and its partners will also assist participating cities with their initiation and development of programs to train local workers on the installation and maintenance of energy saving and clean energy products. The U.S. Green Building Council and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers have agreed to help coordinate these programs.

Global Climate Change: Murdoch's Speech on Climate Change

In the midst of a May storm of late summer variety, I saw on my RSS feed that Climate Change Action blogger Calvin Jones has posted a link to a speech by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, News Corporation at the launch of Global Energy Initiative to News Corporation Employees: Hot Green Murdoch

I wonder, was Bill O'Reilly in the room? What about Michael Crichton?

Global Climate Change: Kempe, Former Skeptic, Convinced by Military Report

Bloomberg columnist Frederick Kempe, a self-described former global-warming skeptic, published an opinion piece yesterday about "a seismic shift" in America the growing consensus that climate change is a mainstream issue:

You know climate change has become a top priority in Washington when it starts penetrating the thinking of leaders in the U.S. military and intelligence community.

Eleven retired generals and admirals have sent out a warning shot about national-security threats from climate change, calling it a ``threat-multiplier'' that will make unstable regions shakier through increased drought, extreme weather, migrations and rising extremism.

No less than President George W. Bush has issued a clarion call, citing the ``serious challenge of global climate change'' in his last State of the Union address. His administration's intelligence community had begun work looking at how global warming could pressurize unstable regions even before the Senate introduced legislation calling for a National Intelligence Estimate on it.

``Moving climate change into the national security realm is a watershed event,'' says Sherri Goodman, a former Pentagon official who directed the Military Advisory Board at the CNA Corp., a national-security research organization in Alexandria, Virginia.

That's all further evidence of a seismic shift in America on climate change as a mainstream issue, which may soon have the world's biggest energy user leapfrogging Europe and elsewhere on the science of reducing emissions and on studies of the political consequences if those efforts fall short.

Read the full article: Kempe on Climate Change

Alternative Energy: FutureGen Partnership between Japan, US

from Yomiuri Shimbun
Date: April 22, 2007

The Japanese and U.S. governments will likely agree at a bilateral summit meeting scheduled for Friday on Japan's participation in a U.S. project to develop a coal-fueled, near-zero emission power plant, it was learned Saturday.

Japan will cooperate with the United States in terms of funds and technologies for the FutureGen project, which the U.S. government has been promoting since 2003. South Korea and India have also participated in the project.

The project will spend more than 1 billion dollars on developing technologies to store carbon dioxide from the plant in the ground, making it the world's first thermal power plant not to emit pollutants and CO2 into the air.

CO2 from the plant will be liquefied by applying massive pressure, before being injected into the earth at a depth of more than 1,000 meters. The new technologies currently being studied are also aimed at preventing the liquefied carbon dioxide from leaking from the rock stratum.

In Japan, the Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth has been conducting verification tests on a CO2 geological sequestration system at a natural gas field in Nagaoka, Niigata Prefecture. It is hoped the results of the research will be applicable to the U.S. project, government sources said.

Although the United States is a major emitter of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol that set country-specific targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions for the period from 2008 to 2012, aimed at preventing global warming.

Through its cooperation with the FutureGen project, Tokyo will try to persuade the U.S. government to join global efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, while at the same time promoting U.S. participation in post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations.

Technologies to store CO2 in the ground and sea have recently been attracting attention, being viewed as one of the most promising measures among others aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.

Global Climate Change: Step It Up Plans Hundreds of Actions

Associated Press reported today that "a group of Middlebury College students looking to draw attention to global warming have sparked a national day of action beyond their wildest expectations: 1,350 actions planned Saturday across all 50 states.

"Participants in Step It Up 2007 will be skiing down a disappearing glacier in Wyoming and diving to a coral reef off the Florida Keys. In Vershire, Vt., they'll be eating pancakes to highlight concerns about how climate change could affect maple syrup production.

"In New York City, blue-clad protesters will line up to mark where rising sea levels could move the coastline. San Franciscans will load up their low-emissions vehicles with stuffed polar bears for a trip to a local Hummer dealership, to illustrate worries that warmer temperatures could wipe out the species' habitat.

"'We see this to be the most pressing issue of our time, and our generation,' said Will Bates, 23, one of six former Middlebury students who helped organize the event with author Bill McKibben, a scholar in residence at the school.

"'We care about the impact it'll have on our lives and on the lives of people all over the world,' Bates said. 'We see it as a moral issue, and we see the need to take urgent action. It's not something that can wait years or decades.'

"Step It Up is aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. It is the outgrowth of a Nov. 4 event in which more than 500 people hiked up mountains, handed out leaflets and held other actions in 30 locations around Vermont, each branded with a 'Vote to Stop Global Warming' banner.

"Working from a two-room storefront in Burlington and using word of mouth, blogs, e-mail messages and other appeals, organizers have drawn a huge response to the April day of action, thanks in part to help from organizations such as the National Wildlife Federation and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"'Since we had no money and no organization, we thought we might organize 100 (events) by April 14,' said McKibben. 'Instead, it's taken off like a shot.'

"McKibben, whose 1989 book 'The End of Nature,' was among the first to highlight the problem of global warming, says the event marks a watershed moment in the push to act.

"'It makes me unbelievably hopeful,' he said Thursday in a telephone interview from New York, where he was promoting the event. 'I've been doing this for a very long time. I wrote the first book on all this in 1989. Most of that time, not much has been happening. I've been telling myself The moment will come, and when it does, we have to take advantage.'"

Global Climate Change: ConocoPhillips Joins Coalition

UPI reported this morning that ConocoPhillips Co. became the first major U.S. oil company to call for a federal global-warming-emissions cap.

The Houston-based oil company said it had joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group of corporations outlining broad principles they propose for a U.S. emissions cap.

"We recognize that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate," Chairman and Chief Executive Jim Mulva said.

Britain's BP PLC has also endorsed a U.S. global-warming emissions cap and is in USCAP, along with industrial products and media conglomerate General Electric Co. while supermajors ExxonMobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Total SA and Chevron Corp. are not.

Mulva said ConocoPhillips believed "a mandatory national regulatory framework that links to international programs is most likely to achieve meaningful impact on global greenhouse gas emissions."

ConocoPhillips and other companies are endorsing a single nationwide cap because they believe it will be less onerous than a patchwork of state rules, The Wall Street Journal reported.