Sunday, July 30, 2006
MAINE VOICES: Harry Brown and David Platt
According to scientists, our planet is about 10 years - or 2 degrees - away from irreversible climate change.
Two degrees may not sound like much, but to Earth this small rise, quite literally, means a world of difference - a world that will be irretrievably committed to widespread agricultural failure, water shortages, major droughts, increased disease, a rise in sea level and the death of forests.
The culprit? Carbon dioxide, a so-called greenhouse gas, which has helped sustain life by maintaining Earth's temperature, has exploded into our atmosphere, and ironically, now threatens life as we know it.
While the exhaust from our tailpipes and the emissions from our factories are literally smoking guns, the dirty air spewing from our electric power plants is largely to blame.
In fact, electric power plants emit 40 percent of U.S. carbon pollution, which is poised to spiral upward in response to our nation's insatiable appetite for electricity.
Maine has the opportunity this summer, already shaping up to be the hottest on record, to help lead the way out of this global crisis by allowing for a sane and sustainable solution: wind power.
This week, the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission will weigh evidence to determine whether the 90-megawatt Redington wind farm, capable of powering 40,000 homes, should be erected just west of the Sugarloaf ski area.
At the heart of this decision is whether "substantial evidence" exists that the proposed project "satisfies a demonstrated need." With an ever-growing demand for power, supplied by otherwise environmentally detrimental sources - namely coal, oil and gas - the need for wind power has never been greater.
Consider the following: Electricity use in Maine and the nation will grow. The Department of Energy anticipates that all "electricity demand regions" will need additional, currently unplanned, capacity by 2030, with as much as a 75 percent increase in demand from the commercial sector alone.
The retirement of older oil-, coal- and natural gas-fired power plants will spur further demand for capacity, and if current trends continue, more oil-, gas- and coal-fired plants will take their place, spilling ever more greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.
Make no mistake, the much-touted, so-called "clean coal" technology slated for our next-generation plants is by no means "clean." Burning coal is just that, burning coal, and it remains a source of greenhouse gases.
Wind power is emission-free. End of argument. As a substitute for fossil fuel power, the Redington wind farm would keep nearly 300 million pounds of greenhouse gases from being emitted each year, which is like taking 25,000 cars off the road annually.
This is above and beyond the avoidance of "upstream" impacts from fossil fuel use, including mining, drilling, pipeline construction and fuel transportation.
The wind is free. When weighing demonstrated need, LURC should consider, for example, that natural gas, which accounts for 60 percent of the electricity generated in Maine, is not free.
In fact, our growing reliance on natural gas - combined with limited and often insecure foreign supplies - subjects this fuel to price spikes and supply interruptions, which drives up consumer energy costs and threatens our economy.
While the commission must consider whether the proposed project would be detrimental to the surrounding environment and wildlife, a review of the extensive studies conducted and the conclusions reached by state Inland Fisheries and Wildlife officials should allay concerns.
Moreover, the direct and indirect impact that carbon-caused climate change will have on the habitat of the area's birds and other wildlife underscores the need for the Redington facility.
The way Maine generates electricity must change, but the way we use power must change as well. No amount of wind power or any other energy source will ever be an adequate substitute for energy efficiency.
Yet, as we develop energy-saving technologies and streamline usage, there will be no better substitute for fossil fuel than wind power.
While no one can claim that the Redington wind farm would solve global warming single-handedly, the project is timely and a needed step in that direction for Maine and this home we call Earth.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Rethinking the power structure
By TUX TURKEL, Portland Press Herald Writer
Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
Should Maine pull the plug on its 35-year membership in New England's electric power pool?
Does it make economic sense? Would reliability suffer if Maine formed its own transmission organization?
How about forging stronger connections with neighboring New Brunswick and swapping more power with Atlantic Canada?
These are heavy issues to ponder midsummer in Maine. But with hundreds of millions of dollars hanging on these questions, more than two dozen interested parties filed written comments and sent representatives earlier this month to meet with the Maine Public Utilities Commission, which has been asked by lawmakers to study the topic and report back in February.
The outcome is sure to affect the electric bills of homeowners and businesses for years to come.
Maine has come to a similar crossroads before.
To break the region's dependence on imported oil in the 1980s, well-intentioned policymakers created incentives for developing hydro, wood and other renewable energy sources. When oil prices unexpectedly crashed in the early 1990s, high-priced supply contracts helped push electric bills up 40 percent.
That set the stage for a radical restructuring of Maine's electric industry.
Facing pressure from frustrated voters, lawmakers dismantled the historic arrangement by which utilities generated power and regulators oversaw rates, in favor of a new model that relied on competition to control prices. The plan forced utilities, including Central Maine Power Co. and Bangor Hydro-Electric Co., to sell their power plants. Today's restructured marketplace, occupied by unregulated companies and dominated by natural gas-fired generation, is the legacy of their decision.
Restructuring's grand experiment got off to a good start, until oil and natural gas prices hit record levels. Now rates are climbing again, and homeowners and businesses are complaining.
To make matters worse, plans to boost generating capacity and upgrade transmission lines in southern New England will cost Maine consumers more than $300 million, state officials estimate.
These and other factors have again brought Maine to a pivotal point.
Consumers and businesses see electricity as a fundamental need, observed Kurt Adams, the PUC's chairman. But as prices rise, there's a growing sense that Maine has lost control of its energy future to a dereg- ulated marketplace dominated by regional power generators, systems operators and federal bureaucrats.
"People feel like they don't have any vehicle to control costs," he said.
This growing frustration has formed a backdrop for the inquiry now before Adams and his associates. On a parallel track, the PUC is conducting a second study for the Legislature on whether it can direct CMP and Bangor Hydro to enter into long-term energy contracts aimed at stabilizing prices.
Maine has been part of a regional electricity grid for more than 35 years. A central dispatch and control center in Massachusetts manages the minute-by-minute demand for power across the six states. It was initially run by the New England Power Pool and has been operated since 1997 by ISO New England, the region's independent system operator.
But a request by federal utility regulators to boost generating capacity in fast-growing parts of Connecticut and Massachusetts has strained this relationship. It was further eroded by the cost-sharing formula in a controversial plan designed by ISO New England.
The plan was opposed by Adams and other officials in Maine, which generates more power than it uses. They consider the deal a windfall for large power companies, at the expense of Maine electric customers. That frustration is shared by lawmakers. That's why they told the PUC to explore alternatives to staying with the regional power pool and the policies of ISO New England.
To help frame the discussion, the PUC asked interested parties to respond in writing to a series of specific questions. The agency asked, for instance, how a stand-alone transmission organization in Maine could dispatch and control generators. It asked for thoughts about the cost of a Maine-only system, a northern New England system or one joined with eastern Canada.
Not surprisingly, the responses are fairly technical. And they reflect the points of view of the interested parties.
FPL Energy Maine Inc., which purchased CMP's power plants as part of restructuring, opposes Maine's withdrawal from ISO-New England. Take a long-term view, FPL suggests in its responses. Maine has been both a net importer and exporter of energy. The equation can change quickly, as it did when Maine Yankee abruptly closed in 1997, and more recently when five gas-fired power plants were built in the state.
A Portland lawyer representing the power generator also made this point: Despite rising prices, Maine has saved millions of dollars since restructuring took effect six years ago, compared to what rates would be under traditional cost-of-service regulation.
"But it's very hard to get people to look long-term when you're hurting today," said Patrick Scully. "People are looking for someone to blame and some way to make it right."
Large Maine businesses that use lots of power have a different perspective.
Comments from the Industrial Energy Consumer Group are very critical of ISO New England's capacity and transmission planning. The system is just too expensive for Maine, according to the group, which includes paper mills and other manufacturers. Rather than thinking about the study as a comparison of different political jurisdictions, the group suggests - New England vs. Canada, for instance - the PUC should reframe the question in a more basic way: What sort of transmission organization is best for the people of Maine?
"The first step is to recognize you have a problem, and that's what we're doing here," said Tony Buxton, a lawyer representing the group.
Also on the table is the idea of forming stronger links with Atlantic Canada.
This concept has a certain appeal. Maine already has a transmission line connecting New Brunswick, and a second one is being built. Sections of northern and eastern Maine that are isolated from New England's power grid are connected to New Brunswick. On a corporate level, Bangor Hydro is owned by Emera, a Nova Scotian utility.
Various legal and tariff issues would need to be ironed out for a joint Maine-Canadian regional transmission organization to succeed. But comments submitted to the PUC by the New Brunswick System Operator note that some of the solutions can be found in agreements with transmission organizations in Manitoba and British Columbia, and their counterparts across the U.S. border.
Utilities also are weighing in. Central Maine Power is using the forum to push for a debate over the wisdom of Maine's restructuring law, which it says has left consumers at the mercy of a volatile wholesale energy market. In a recent newspaper column, Sara Burns, the company's president, made a case for CMP to once again build and own power plants.
It's too early to say whether CMP's back-to-the-future campaign will gain any traction.
Stephen Ward, the state's public advocate, said CMP's argument suggests that consumers could have avoided the impact of rising energy prices, if the old regulatory regime had stayed in place. That's not likely, he said. The often-unappreciated benefit of restructuring is that shareholders - not ratepayers - assume the financial risk for building power plants.
The PUC will take the next few months to weigh the alternatives to Maine's current relationship with the regional grid. And after attending the recent meeting at the PUC, Ward said he's encouraged by the agency's open-minded approach to gathering information. It correctly assumes, he said, that no one knows the right answers to the questions.
And despite growing anger over rising electricity prices and the policies of regional energy planners, Ward said, it's far from clear that Maine can come up with a better alternative.
"I don't see this in any way as a forgone conclusion," he said of the study. "I see it as due diligence."
Staff Writer Tux Turkel can be contacted at 791-6462 or at:
tturkel@pressherald.com
Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
Should Maine pull the plug on its 35-year membership in New England's electric power pool?
Does it make economic sense? Would reliability suffer if Maine formed its own transmission organization?
How about forging stronger connections with neighboring New Brunswick and swapping more power with Atlantic Canada?
These are heavy issues to ponder midsummer in Maine. But with hundreds of millions of dollars hanging on these questions, more than two dozen interested parties filed written comments and sent representatives earlier this month to meet with the Maine Public Utilities Commission, which has been asked by lawmakers to study the topic and report back in February.
The outcome is sure to affect the electric bills of homeowners and businesses for years to come.
Maine has come to a similar crossroads before.
To break the region's dependence on imported oil in the 1980s, well-intentioned policymakers created incentives for developing hydro, wood and other renewable energy sources. When oil prices unexpectedly crashed in the early 1990s, high-priced supply contracts helped push electric bills up 40 percent.
That set the stage for a radical restructuring of Maine's electric industry.
Facing pressure from frustrated voters, lawmakers dismantled the historic arrangement by which utilities generated power and regulators oversaw rates, in favor of a new model that relied on competition to control prices. The plan forced utilities, including Central Maine Power Co. and Bangor Hydro-Electric Co., to sell their power plants. Today's restructured marketplace, occupied by unregulated companies and dominated by natural gas-fired generation, is the legacy of their decision.
Restructuring's grand experiment got off to a good start, until oil and natural gas prices hit record levels. Now rates are climbing again, and homeowners and businesses are complaining.
To make matters worse, plans to boost generating capacity and upgrade transmission lines in southern New England will cost Maine consumers more than $300 million, state officials estimate.
These and other factors have again brought Maine to a pivotal point.
Consumers and businesses see electricity as a fundamental need, observed Kurt Adams, the PUC's chairman. But as prices rise, there's a growing sense that Maine has lost control of its energy future to a dereg- ulated marketplace dominated by regional power generators, systems operators and federal bureaucrats.
"People feel like they don't have any vehicle to control costs," he said.
This growing frustration has formed a backdrop for the inquiry now before Adams and his associates. On a parallel track, the PUC is conducting a second study for the Legislature on whether it can direct CMP and Bangor Hydro to enter into long-term energy contracts aimed at stabilizing prices.
Maine has been part of a regional electricity grid for more than 35 years. A central dispatch and control center in Massachusetts manages the minute-by-minute demand for power across the six states. It was initially run by the New England Power Pool and has been operated since 1997 by ISO New England, the region's independent system operator.
But a request by federal utility regulators to boost generating capacity in fast-growing parts of Connecticut and Massachusetts has strained this relationship. It was further eroded by the cost-sharing formula in a controversial plan designed by ISO New England.
The plan was opposed by Adams and other officials in Maine, which generates more power than it uses. They consider the deal a windfall for large power companies, at the expense of Maine electric customers. That frustration is shared by lawmakers. That's why they told the PUC to explore alternatives to staying with the regional power pool and the policies of ISO New England.
To help frame the discussion, the PUC asked interested parties to respond in writing to a series of specific questions. The agency asked, for instance, how a stand-alone transmission organization in Maine could dispatch and control generators. It asked for thoughts about the cost of a Maine-only system, a northern New England system or one joined with eastern Canada.
Not surprisingly, the responses are fairly technical. And they reflect the points of view of the interested parties.
FPL Energy Maine Inc., which purchased CMP's power plants as part of restructuring, opposes Maine's withdrawal from ISO-New England. Take a long-term view, FPL suggests in its responses. Maine has been both a net importer and exporter of energy. The equation can change quickly, as it did when Maine Yankee abruptly closed in 1997, and more recently when five gas-fired power plants were built in the state.
A Portland lawyer representing the power generator also made this point: Despite rising prices, Maine has saved millions of dollars since restructuring took effect six years ago, compared to what rates would be under traditional cost-of-service regulation.
"But it's very hard to get people to look long-term when you're hurting today," said Patrick Scully. "People are looking for someone to blame and some way to make it right."
Large Maine businesses that use lots of power have a different perspective.
Comments from the Industrial Energy Consumer Group are very critical of ISO New England's capacity and transmission planning. The system is just too expensive for Maine, according to the group, which includes paper mills and other manufacturers. Rather than thinking about the study as a comparison of different political jurisdictions, the group suggests - New England vs. Canada, for instance - the PUC should reframe the question in a more basic way: What sort of transmission organization is best for the people of Maine?
"The first step is to recognize you have a problem, and that's what we're doing here," said Tony Buxton, a lawyer representing the group.
Also on the table is the idea of forming stronger links with Atlantic Canada.
This concept has a certain appeal. Maine already has a transmission line connecting New Brunswick, and a second one is being built. Sections of northern and eastern Maine that are isolated from New England's power grid are connected to New Brunswick. On a corporate level, Bangor Hydro is owned by Emera, a Nova Scotian utility.
Various legal and tariff issues would need to be ironed out for a joint Maine-Canadian regional transmission organization to succeed. But comments submitted to the PUC by the New Brunswick System Operator note that some of the solutions can be found in agreements with transmission organizations in Manitoba and British Columbia, and their counterparts across the U.S. border.
Utilities also are weighing in. Central Maine Power is using the forum to push for a debate over the wisdom of Maine's restructuring law, which it says has left consumers at the mercy of a volatile wholesale energy market. In a recent newspaper column, Sara Burns, the company's president, made a case for CMP to once again build and own power plants.
It's too early to say whether CMP's back-to-the-future campaign will gain any traction.
Stephen Ward, the state's public advocate, said CMP's argument suggests that consumers could have avoided the impact of rising energy prices, if the old regulatory regime had stayed in place. That's not likely, he said. The often-unappreciated benefit of restructuring is that shareholders - not ratepayers - assume the financial risk for building power plants.
The PUC will take the next few months to weigh the alternatives to Maine's current relationship with the regional grid. And after attending the recent meeting at the PUC, Ward said he's encouraged by the agency's open-minded approach to gathering information. It correctly assumes, he said, that no one knows the right answers to the questions.
And despite growing anger over rising electricity prices and the policies of regional energy planners, Ward said, it's far from clear that Maine can come up with a better alternative.
"I don't see this in any way as a forgone conclusion," he said of the study. "I see it as due diligence."
Staff Writer Tux Turkel can be contacted at 791-6462 or at:
tturkel@pressherald.com
Wind farm site threatens wilderness
Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
On Aug. 2-4, Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission will hold a public hearing on whether Maine Mountain Power should be allowed to construct a wind farm within a "mountain area protection" zone in the western high mountains region between Rangeley and Carrabassett.
The project would involve the construction of over 8 miles of very wide, high-standard roads and 30 410-foot-tall wind turbines at elevations up to 4,000 feet on the Redington Pond Range and Black Nubble Mountain.
We are all aware of the consequences of burning fossil fuels - global warming, acid deposition and the national security implications of our reliance on fossil fuels. America and Maine need a host of renewable energy technologies, including wind power, to address these problems.
However, we should not blindly support wind or any other technology without weighing all the impacts.
Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet: Whenever we produce electricity, there is an impact. The impact may be pushing pollutants into the air or blocking fish passage at a hydroelectric station, or building roads and power lines on remote and fragile mountaintops to gain access to a windy ridge.
The proposed development would be located in the heart of one of Maine's most spectacular mountain regions, within close proximity to over half of the 4,000-foot peaks in the state - some of Maine's most iconic summits, including Saddleback, Abraham, Spaulding, Sugarloaf, Crocker and Bigelow.
Along with Baxter State Park, the region contains the greatest collection of wild, remote and roadless habitats in the state.
The developer has proposed constructing the 40-story-tall wind turbines barely a mile from, and in full view of, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, a protected greenway that, like Acadia and Yosemite, is part of the National Park System.
This section of the trail is widely regarded as one of the jewels of the trail, where a hiker can escape to the high mountains and walk above the treeline through a remote and undeveloped landscape. Unfortunately, the project would not just disrupt the view from one peak - it would affect every major summit and vista along 50 miles of the trail - about seven days of hiking.
However, our concerns are not just aesthetic. The project would clear a 90-foot-wide road corridor through one of Maine's most pristine rare subalpine forest communities.
It would disrupt exemplary habitat for two of the state's rarest and most threatened animals - the northern bog lemming and Bicknell's thrush. It would bisect a high-elevation roadless corridor extending for 17 miles from Route 4 to Route 27.
An independent road engineer estimated that 26 tons of dynamite would be needed to blast the roads and turbine foundations into the steep slopes and thin soils at high elevations, requiring 4,600 dump truck loads to remove it. This kind of disruption will lead to erosion on a massive scale.
The Appalachian Trail Conservancy believes there is a place for wind power in the mountains of Maine and throughout the Northeast. We have looked at six wind farm proposals within the Appalachian Trail's viewshed, and this is the only one we are opposing.
The other five projects will all be seen from the trail, but they are located on ridge lines that already have development (such as ski areas or radio towers), or in landscapes where other human activity (such as towns, highways and farmland) is evident.
The question is not whether to build wind farms, but where to build them. For the most part developers have done a good job in siting projects in areas where the environmental and scenic impacts are not of great concern. (The Mars Hill project is a good example.)
The Maine Mountain Power proposal is an extreme exception to this rule. Mainers should oppose this project and ask their public officials to protect one of the state's most spectacular wild landscapes.
On Aug. 2-4, Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission will hold a public hearing on whether Maine Mountain Power should be allowed to construct a wind farm within a "mountain area protection" zone in the western high mountains region between Rangeley and Carrabassett.
The project would involve the construction of over 8 miles of very wide, high-standard roads and 30 410-foot-tall wind turbines at elevations up to 4,000 feet on the Redington Pond Range and Black Nubble Mountain.
We are all aware of the consequences of burning fossil fuels - global warming, acid deposition and the national security implications of our reliance on fossil fuels. America and Maine need a host of renewable energy technologies, including wind power, to address these problems.
However, we should not blindly support wind or any other technology without weighing all the impacts.
Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet: Whenever we produce electricity, there is an impact. The impact may be pushing pollutants into the air or blocking fish passage at a hydroelectric station, or building roads and power lines on remote and fragile mountaintops to gain access to a windy ridge.
The proposed development would be located in the heart of one of Maine's most spectacular mountain regions, within close proximity to over half of the 4,000-foot peaks in the state - some of Maine's most iconic summits, including Saddleback, Abraham, Spaulding, Sugarloaf, Crocker and Bigelow.
Along with Baxter State Park, the region contains the greatest collection of wild, remote and roadless habitats in the state.
The developer has proposed constructing the 40-story-tall wind turbines barely a mile from, and in full view of, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, a protected greenway that, like Acadia and Yosemite, is part of the National Park System.
This section of the trail is widely regarded as one of the jewels of the trail, where a hiker can escape to the high mountains and walk above the treeline through a remote and undeveloped landscape. Unfortunately, the project would not just disrupt the view from one peak - it would affect every major summit and vista along 50 miles of the trail - about seven days of hiking.
However, our concerns are not just aesthetic. The project would clear a 90-foot-wide road corridor through one of Maine's most pristine rare subalpine forest communities.
It would disrupt exemplary habitat for two of the state's rarest and most threatened animals - the northern bog lemming and Bicknell's thrush. It would bisect a high-elevation roadless corridor extending for 17 miles from Route 4 to Route 27.
An independent road engineer estimated that 26 tons of dynamite would be needed to blast the roads and turbine foundations into the steep slopes and thin soils at high elevations, requiring 4,600 dump truck loads to remove it. This kind of disruption will lead to erosion on a massive scale.
The Appalachian Trail Conservancy believes there is a place for wind power in the mountains of Maine and throughout the Northeast. We have looked at six wind farm proposals within the Appalachian Trail's viewshed, and this is the only one we are opposing.
The other five projects will all be seen from the trail, but they are located on ridge lines that already have development (such as ski areas or radio towers), or in landscapes where other human activity (such as towns, highways and farmland) is evident.
The question is not whether to build wind farms, but where to build them. For the most part developers have done a good job in siting projects in areas where the environmental and scenic impacts are not of great concern. (The Mars Hill project is a good example.)
The Maine Mountain Power proposal is an extreme exception to this rule. Mainers should oppose this project and ask their public officials to protect one of the state's most spectacular wild landscapes.
Blaine House hopefuls back alternative energy
By GLENN ADAMS, Associated Press
©Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
AUGUSTA — Most candidates for governor are open to having a liquefied natural gas facility Down East if it clears regulatory hurdles. They also see development of wind power as a big plus in Maine's energy mix. But most also express deep reservations about offshore drilling for oil and gas, which will be allowed if Congress lifts a moratorium on the practice.
In a survey of the candidates by The Associated Press, the candidates also voiced support for a range of alternative forms of energy.
"To promote renewable power generation, Maine should focus on small-scale projects located at or near the user," independent Barbara Merrill said. "That will cut down on our paying unfair New England transmission charges and reduce environmental impact."
Candidates were asked whether they favor having an LNG plant in eastern Maine, and whether they favor any of three active plans in particular.
Republican nominee Chandler Woodcock said he favors the idea of having an LNG project, provided it's locally approved, but doesn't favor one project over another.
Without taking a position, Democratic Gov. John Baldacci said he has formed a working group to review all LNG permit applications, but noted that developers in other states have maintained that federal energy regulators have authority over LNG siting.
Merrill said affected towns should have a say in where a plant is located.
"Ideally, people there will find a way to permit an LNG plant while doing nothing to undermine" the region's scenic coastline, she said.
Fellow independent John Michael, who sees liquefied natural gas as a viable alternative to other fossil fuels, said an LNG facility "could make sense for ratepayers, and would obviously stimulate the local economy wherever it is located." He also agreed with Woodcock and Merrill in saying any project should have to get local approval in order to go forward.
Green Independent candidate Pat LaMarche dismissed liquefied natural gas as "not a long-term solution" and said a terminal in Maine has more to do with supplying other states than keeping Maine homes warm and lighted.
"A finite fuel source, with long- and short-range negative environmental impact, foisted on our state's poorest communities and headed to consumers outside Maine - that will likely turn into a legal quagmire - doesn't make very much sense for the people of Maine," LaMarche said.
On wind-power proposals, Baldacci sidestepped taking a position on any particular project, saying only that he has proposed increasing the renewable energy supply 10 percent by 2017 and "development of wind energy facilities in Maine holds much promise."
One wind project, in Mars Hill, is already under construction. State regulators are considering plans for another, the 90-megawatt Redington Wind Farm near Sugarloaf Mountain, a project critics see as a blight on western Maine's mountain vistas. Others are being proposed.
Woodcock, who is from Farmington, rejects the Redington plan because of its location, but said he is open to wind power in general if government subsidies provided in the form of tax credits can be reduced.
Michael questioned whether the Redington project's visibility from the Appalachian Trail and Sugarloaf Mountain could affect the local tourism economy. Local municipalities, he said, should have the final say.
Merrill said the Redington project should go forward if it meets requirements of Maine law.
"We no longer have the luxury of vetoing every project even if it is in a pristine location, if we are serious about dealing with global warming, air quality and reducing our reliance on foreign oil," Merrill said.
LaMarche, while acknowledging critics' concerns about the Redington project, views the windmills from a different perspective. Recalling seeing them while living in Holland, LaMarche said she has "an affection for the aesthetics and efficiency of windmills."
A proposal in Congress to lift a moratorium on drilling for oil and gas off the Atlantic coast drew sharply critical responses from nearly all of the candidates.
Baldacci said approval would roll back nearly a quarter-century of bipartisan protection for the coastal environment.
"Drilling in our ocean waters should be a last resort, not a first choice toward achieving energy independence," he said.
LaMarche said, "Further jeopardizing our environment for a vanishing resource solves nothing. We need solutions. Wind, hydro, solar, organic fuels and conservation are solutions."
Merrill is also against offshore drilling, as is Michael, who believes that it adds to the nation's dependence on fossil fuels and frustrates efforts to develop alternative energy sources.
Woodcock took no position on offshore drilling, saying it is a federal issue. He agreed there needs to be a commitment to "viable" energy alternatives - those that have a reasonable cost and are locally approved.
Phillip Morris NaPier, an independent whose name will appear on the ballot, favors the Redington windmills but not offshore drilling. While he sees an economic plus from the LNG project, he also sees a potential for danger if the plant is targeted by terrorists.
David John Jones, also an independent, did not respond to the survey.
©Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
AUGUSTA — Most candidates for governor are open to having a liquefied natural gas facility Down East if it clears regulatory hurdles. They also see development of wind power as a big plus in Maine's energy mix. But most also express deep reservations about offshore drilling for oil and gas, which will be allowed if Congress lifts a moratorium on the practice.
In a survey of the candidates by The Associated Press, the candidates also voiced support for a range of alternative forms of energy.
"To promote renewable power generation, Maine should focus on small-scale projects located at or near the user," independent Barbara Merrill said. "That will cut down on our paying unfair New England transmission charges and reduce environmental impact."
Candidates were asked whether they favor having an LNG plant in eastern Maine, and whether they favor any of three active plans in particular.
Republican nominee Chandler Woodcock said he favors the idea of having an LNG project, provided it's locally approved, but doesn't favor one project over another.
Without taking a position, Democratic Gov. John Baldacci said he has formed a working group to review all LNG permit applications, but noted that developers in other states have maintained that federal energy regulators have authority over LNG siting.
Merrill said affected towns should have a say in where a plant is located.
"Ideally, people there will find a way to permit an LNG plant while doing nothing to undermine" the region's scenic coastline, she said.
Fellow independent John Michael, who sees liquefied natural gas as a viable alternative to other fossil fuels, said an LNG facility "could make sense for ratepayers, and would obviously stimulate the local economy wherever it is located." He also agreed with Woodcock and Merrill in saying any project should have to get local approval in order to go forward.
Green Independent candidate Pat LaMarche dismissed liquefied natural gas as "not a long-term solution" and said a terminal in Maine has more to do with supplying other states than keeping Maine homes warm and lighted.
"A finite fuel source, with long- and short-range negative environmental impact, foisted on our state's poorest communities and headed to consumers outside Maine - that will likely turn into a legal quagmire - doesn't make very much sense for the people of Maine," LaMarche said.
On wind-power proposals, Baldacci sidestepped taking a position on any particular project, saying only that he has proposed increasing the renewable energy supply 10 percent by 2017 and "development of wind energy facilities in Maine holds much promise."
One wind project, in Mars Hill, is already under construction. State regulators are considering plans for another, the 90-megawatt Redington Wind Farm near Sugarloaf Mountain, a project critics see as a blight on western Maine's mountain vistas. Others are being proposed.
Woodcock, who is from Farmington, rejects the Redington plan because of its location, but said he is open to wind power in general if government subsidies provided in the form of tax credits can be reduced.
Michael questioned whether the Redington project's visibility from the Appalachian Trail and Sugarloaf Mountain could affect the local tourism economy. Local municipalities, he said, should have the final say.
Merrill said the Redington project should go forward if it meets requirements of Maine law.
"We no longer have the luxury of vetoing every project even if it is in a pristine location, if we are serious about dealing with global warming, air quality and reducing our reliance on foreign oil," Merrill said.
LaMarche, while acknowledging critics' concerns about the Redington project, views the windmills from a different perspective. Recalling seeing them while living in Holland, LaMarche said she has "an affection for the aesthetics and efficiency of windmills."
A proposal in Congress to lift a moratorium on drilling for oil and gas off the Atlantic coast drew sharply critical responses from nearly all of the candidates.
Baldacci said approval would roll back nearly a quarter-century of bipartisan protection for the coastal environment.
"Drilling in our ocean waters should be a last resort, not a first choice toward achieving energy independence," he said.
LaMarche said, "Further jeopardizing our environment for a vanishing resource solves nothing. We need solutions. Wind, hydro, solar, organic fuels and conservation are solutions."
Merrill is also against offshore drilling, as is Michael, who believes that it adds to the nation's dependence on fossil fuels and frustrates efforts to develop alternative energy sources.
Woodcock took no position on offshore drilling, saying it is a federal issue. He agreed there needs to be a commitment to "viable" energy alternatives - those that have a reasonable cost and are locally approved.
Phillip Morris NaPier, an independent whose name will appear on the ballot, favors the Redington windmills but not offshore drilling. While he sees an economic plus from the LNG project, he also sees a potential for danger if the plant is targeted by terrorists.
David John Jones, also an independent, did not respond to the survey.
Something new in the wind for Saco
By SETH HARKNESS, Portland Press Herald Writer
Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
SACO — A windmill should be catching the breeze blowing along the Saco River this fall, converting it into electricity and, it is hoped, a small savings for taxpayers. The Saco City Council voted this week to spend up to $8,000 on a residential-sized windmill to be installed at the city's wastewater treatment plant on Front Street.
Members of the Saco Energy Committee, who proposed buying the small windmill after touring a major windmill installation in Hull, Mass., in the spring, say they expect it to serve a dual purpose.
The 75-foot-tall Skystream turbine will be used to test whether this site beside the Saco River has sufficient wind flow to support a larger windmill like the committee saw in Massachusetts. Hull has two windmills, the larger of which is 330 feet high. Together they power all the city's municipal and school needs with some electricity left over to sell.
Saco City Councilor and Energy Committee member Eric Cote said he hoped the Skystream also would be a public-relations tool to help dispel the idea that windmills are noisy or hazardous to birds and bats.
"You've got to give people an opportunity to learn about the technology and become comfortable with it," he said.
Cote said he expects the test windmill with 6-foot blades to produce about 400 kilowatt-hours per month. That is a small fraction of the 600,000 kilowatt-hours used each year at the sewage treatment plant, but it should allow the windmill to pay for itself in about 10 years, according to the treatment plant manager, Howard Carter, who also is a member of the energy committee.
Considering the relatively small investment needed to buy the test windmill, City Councilor David Tripp said he thought it was well worth exploring whether Saco could follow Hull's example.
"It's unbelievable how much money we could save if we have enough wind to make it work," he said.
In addition to putting up the windmill beside the river, the energy committee intends to measure wind speeds at other sites around town, such as the old landfill in North Saco and the Saco Middle School on Route 112 to see if they are potential sites for a turbine.
The windmill project may be the most forward-looking project the city's energy committee has undertaken since receiving $300,000 in city funding early this year. The group's primary focus is basic energy-saving efforts.
The committee is working to put an energy-efficient light bulb in every light fixture in Saco's school and municipal buildings, a $76,000 project that is expected to pay for itself in five years, Cote said.
The group also is insulating municipal buildings and replacing power-hungry computer monitors and refrigerators with more efficient systems.
Staff Writer Seth Harkness can be contacted at 282-8225 or at:
sharkness@pressherald.com
Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
SACO — A windmill should be catching the breeze blowing along the Saco River this fall, converting it into electricity and, it is hoped, a small savings for taxpayers. The Saco City Council voted this week to spend up to $8,000 on a residential-sized windmill to be installed at the city's wastewater treatment plant on Front Street.
Members of the Saco Energy Committee, who proposed buying the small windmill after touring a major windmill installation in Hull, Mass., in the spring, say they expect it to serve a dual purpose.
The 75-foot-tall Skystream turbine will be used to test whether this site beside the Saco River has sufficient wind flow to support a larger windmill like the committee saw in Massachusetts. Hull has two windmills, the larger of which is 330 feet high. Together they power all the city's municipal and school needs with some electricity left over to sell.
Saco City Councilor and Energy Committee member Eric Cote said he hoped the Skystream also would be a public-relations tool to help dispel the idea that windmills are noisy or hazardous to birds and bats.
"You've got to give people an opportunity to learn about the technology and become comfortable with it," he said.
Cote said he expects the test windmill with 6-foot blades to produce about 400 kilowatt-hours per month. That is a small fraction of the 600,000 kilowatt-hours used each year at the sewage treatment plant, but it should allow the windmill to pay for itself in about 10 years, according to the treatment plant manager, Howard Carter, who also is a member of the energy committee.
Considering the relatively small investment needed to buy the test windmill, City Councilor David Tripp said he thought it was well worth exploring whether Saco could follow Hull's example.
"It's unbelievable how much money we could save if we have enough wind to make it work," he said.
In addition to putting up the windmill beside the river, the energy committee intends to measure wind speeds at other sites around town, such as the old landfill in North Saco and the Saco Middle School on Route 112 to see if they are potential sites for a turbine.
The windmill project may be the most forward-looking project the city's energy committee has undertaken since receiving $300,000 in city funding early this year. The group's primary focus is basic energy-saving efforts.
The committee is working to put an energy-efficient light bulb in every light fixture in Saco's school and municipal buildings, a $76,000 project that is expected to pay for itself in five years, Cote said.
The group also is insulating municipal buildings and replacing power-hungry computer monitors and refrigerators with more efficient systems.
Staff Writer Seth Harkness can be contacted at 282-8225 or at:
sharkness@pressherald.com
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Senate vote could lead to drilling off Maine
This bill is just plain wrong.
By BART JANSEN, Washington D.C. Correspondent
July 26, 2006
Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
WASHINGTON — The Senate will vote today on oil drilling legislation that critics contend could open the door to drilling off the Maine coast. Maine Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins both said Tuesday that they oppose drilling in the Gulf of Maine, which Congress has blocked for a quarter-century.
But the two senators are taking different approaches to today's vote on the bill that would allow more oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
While Snowe is leaning against even debating the measure, Collins said she would support a debate - and then oppose the legislation if negotiations with the House ultimately lead to coastal drilling near Maine.
"I have serious concerns with the whole possibility of opening that door," Snowe said.
Collins said the country should increase domestic oil production - without coastal drilling in the Northeast - while also pursuing conservation efforts.
"I think we need to draw the line very carefully," she said. "I cannot support any bill that would put the Maine coast or any ecologically sensitive areas at risk for offshore drilling."
The Senate legislation aims to open two new areas of the Gulf of Mexico to oil exploration, in a widely embraced compromise that provides a greater share of royalties to coastal states.
Congress has had a moratorium on Atlantic and Pacific coastal drilling within 200 miles of shore since the early 1980s.
But last month the House approved drilling within 100 miles of the coast, with a requirement that states act every five years to prevent drilling between 50 and 100 miles. The House bill would also authorize states to allow drilling closer than 50 miles.
Advocacy groups including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and the League of Conservation Voters oppose the House bill. These groups and lawmakers raised concerns about the shape of whatever compromise might be reached between the Senate and House bills.
"Any new offshore drilling is a step in the wrong direction, for America's energy future and our coastlines," said Maureen Drouin, a Maine spokeswoman for Sierra Club. "If this bill passes the Senate, it will certainly get much worse and the protections much weaker in a House-Senate conference committee, putting resources like the rich fisheries on Georges Bank in jeopardy."
The vote today will test whether at least 60 senators are willing to limit debate on the bill. Otherwise, the bill would die from filibuster. But clearing the hurdle virtually assures the bill's approval for compromise negotiations with the House.
High gas prices drove Congress to tackle drilling and other energy issues. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the drilling bill wouldn't reduce prices immediately. But he argued it is important to spur domestic oil and natural-gas production.
Asked whether a compromise with the House could open more areas to drilling, Frist said he would strive to keep the legislation focused on the two Gulf of Mexico areas known as 181 and 182, totaling 8 million acres.
"I think it's very important to do that," Frist said. "In an election year, there are elements that try very hard to prevent passing anything."
Collins said she would vote to limit debate, which keeps the bill alive.
Although Frist will oppose amendments, Collins said she would support amendments, such as increasing automobile mileage, to improve conservation.
"At the same time, we don't want to put areas of our coast that are ecologically sensitive at risk of an oil spill," Collins said.
Snowe also seeks amendments such as raising mileage standards. She is pursuing an amendment that would continue a drilling moratorium for the Northeast until 2022 to match a moratorium in the Senate bill for Florida's coast.
But depending on anticipated amendments, Snowe is leaning against limiting debate.
"It invites the prospect of that type of drilling off the coast - to the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank - all of the areas that are so vital to New England fisheries," Snowe said.
Washington D.C. Correspondent Bart Jansen can be contacted at (202) 488-1119 or at:
bjansen@pressherald.com
By BART JANSEN, Washington D.C. Correspondent
July 26, 2006
Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
WASHINGTON — The Senate will vote today on oil drilling legislation that critics contend could open the door to drilling off the Maine coast. Maine Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins both said Tuesday that they oppose drilling in the Gulf of Maine, which Congress has blocked for a quarter-century.
But the two senators are taking different approaches to today's vote on the bill that would allow more oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
While Snowe is leaning against even debating the measure, Collins said she would support a debate - and then oppose the legislation if negotiations with the House ultimately lead to coastal drilling near Maine.
"I have serious concerns with the whole possibility of opening that door," Snowe said.
Collins said the country should increase domestic oil production - without coastal drilling in the Northeast - while also pursuing conservation efforts.
"I think we need to draw the line very carefully," she said. "I cannot support any bill that would put the Maine coast or any ecologically sensitive areas at risk for offshore drilling."
The Senate legislation aims to open two new areas of the Gulf of Mexico to oil exploration, in a widely embraced compromise that provides a greater share of royalties to coastal states.
Congress has had a moratorium on Atlantic and Pacific coastal drilling within 200 miles of shore since the early 1980s.
But last month the House approved drilling within 100 miles of the coast, with a requirement that states act every five years to prevent drilling between 50 and 100 miles. The House bill would also authorize states to allow drilling closer than 50 miles.
Advocacy groups including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and the League of Conservation Voters oppose the House bill. These groups and lawmakers raised concerns about the shape of whatever compromise might be reached between the Senate and House bills.
"Any new offshore drilling is a step in the wrong direction, for America's energy future and our coastlines," said Maureen Drouin, a Maine spokeswoman for Sierra Club. "If this bill passes the Senate, it will certainly get much worse and the protections much weaker in a House-Senate conference committee, putting resources like the rich fisheries on Georges Bank in jeopardy."
The vote today will test whether at least 60 senators are willing to limit debate on the bill. Otherwise, the bill would die from filibuster. But clearing the hurdle virtually assures the bill's approval for compromise negotiations with the House.
High gas prices drove Congress to tackle drilling and other energy issues. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the drilling bill wouldn't reduce prices immediately. But he argued it is important to spur domestic oil and natural-gas production.
Asked whether a compromise with the House could open more areas to drilling, Frist said he would strive to keep the legislation focused on the two Gulf of Mexico areas known as 181 and 182, totaling 8 million acres.
"I think it's very important to do that," Frist said. "In an election year, there are elements that try very hard to prevent passing anything."
Collins said she would vote to limit debate, which keeps the bill alive.
Although Frist will oppose amendments, Collins said she would support amendments, such as increasing automobile mileage, to improve conservation.
"At the same time, we don't want to put areas of our coast that are ecologically sensitive at risk of an oil spill," Collins said.
Snowe also seeks amendments such as raising mileage standards. She is pursuing an amendment that would continue a drilling moratorium for the Northeast until 2022 to match a moratorium in the Senate bill for Florida's coast.
But depending on anticipated amendments, Snowe is leaning against limiting debate.
"It invites the prospect of that type of drilling off the coast - to the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank - all of the areas that are so vital to New England fisheries," Snowe said.
Washington D.C. Correspondent Bart Jansen can be contacted at (202) 488-1119 or at:
bjansen@pressherald.com
Automotive X Prize Launched
The following is a brief overview of the Automotive X Prize. Let the games begin!
AUTOMOTIVE X PRIZE OVERVIEW
The rules and format of the Automotive X PRIZE are currently being developed with generous help from some of the finest minds of our time.
We will soon release the competition guidelines for public comment. To be notified when the guidelines are ready, please sign up today.
Meanwhile, we can share our goals and approach to launching an automotive revolution.
Goals of the Prize
Our goal is to stimulate automotive technology, manufacturing and marketing breakthroughs that:
* Radically reduce oil consumption and harmful emissions
* Result in a new generation of super-efficient and desirable mainstream vehicles that people want to buy
How it will work
The rules are being shaped by our philosophy that the Automotive X PRIZE must:
* Achieve our main goals (above)
* Be simple to understand and easy to communicate
* Benefit the world - this is a global challenge
* Result in real cars available for purchase, not concept cars
* Remain independent, fair, non-partisan, and technology-neutral
* Provide clear technical boundaries (i.e., for fuel-efficiency, emissions, safety, manufacturability, performance, capacity, etc.)
* Offer a "level playing field" that attracts both existing automobile manufacturers and newcomers
* Attract a balanced array of private investment, donors, sponsors, and partners to help competitors succeed (e.g., manufacturing assistance, testing resources, etc.)
* Make heroes out of the competitors and winner(s) through unprecedented exposure, media coverage and a significant cash award
* Educate the public on key issues
AUTOMOTIVE X PRIZE OVERVIEW
The rules and format of the Automotive X PRIZE are currently being developed with generous help from some of the finest minds of our time.
We will soon release the competition guidelines for public comment. To be notified when the guidelines are ready, please sign up today.
Meanwhile, we can share our goals and approach to launching an automotive revolution.
Goals of the Prize
Our goal is to stimulate automotive technology, manufacturing and marketing breakthroughs that:
* Radically reduce oil consumption and harmful emissions
* Result in a new generation of super-efficient and desirable mainstream vehicles that people want to buy
How it will work
The rules are being shaped by our philosophy that the Automotive X PRIZE must:
* Achieve our main goals (above)
* Be simple to understand and easy to communicate
* Benefit the world - this is a global challenge
* Result in real cars available for purchase, not concept cars
* Remain independent, fair, non-partisan, and technology-neutral
* Provide clear technical boundaries (i.e., for fuel-efficiency, emissions, safety, manufacturability, performance, capacity, etc.)
* Offer a "level playing field" that attracts both existing automobile manufacturers and newcomers
* Attract a balanced array of private investment, donors, sponsors, and partners to help competitors succeed (e.g., manufacturing assistance, testing resources, etc.)
* Make heroes out of the competitors and winner(s) through unprecedented exposure, media coverage and a significant cash award
* Educate the public on key issues
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Vicious circle
Gristmill
Posted by Adam Browning at 10:27 AM on 25 Jul 2006
Records are falling all around in California.
A heat wave has been setting record temperatures. And then on Monday, California set a record for all-time peak electricity usage. From the NYT:
"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered state agencies to reduce electricity consumption by 25 percent, acting on a prediction from the state's power grid managers that demand would peak at 52,000 megawatts, a mark they had not expected to reach until 2011. Demand peaked at 50,270 megawatts at 2:44 p.m. Pacific time, breaking the record of 49,036 megawatts set last Friday."
More heat = more electricity usage.
More electricity usage = more carbon emissions.
More carbon emissions = ... you get the idea.
Fortunately renewables are a priority in California, unlike most other states where coal fired plants are under consideration if not construction. We have to break the circle.
This heat wave is a strong one, with humidity that we have not seen in about ten years. On top of that the over night low did not dip below 76. More conservation, peak load management, and efficiency is needed as well. As well as better outage management.
Looking forward to this next wave solar photovoltaic.
Posted by Adam Browning at 10:27 AM on 25 Jul 2006
Records are falling all around in California.
A heat wave has been setting record temperatures. And then on Monday, California set a record for all-time peak electricity usage. From the NYT:
"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered state agencies to reduce electricity consumption by 25 percent, acting on a prediction from the state's power grid managers that demand would peak at 52,000 megawatts, a mark they had not expected to reach until 2011. Demand peaked at 50,270 megawatts at 2:44 p.m. Pacific time, breaking the record of 49,036 megawatts set last Friday."
More heat = more electricity usage.
More electricity usage = more carbon emissions.
More carbon emissions = ... you get the idea.
Fortunately renewables are a priority in California, unlike most other states where coal fired plants are under consideration if not construction. We have to break the circle.
This heat wave is a strong one, with humidity that we have not seen in about ten years. On top of that the over night low did not dip below 76. More conservation, peak load management, and efficiency is needed as well. As well as better outage management.
Looking forward to this next wave solar photovoltaic.
Application Filed for First U.S. Commercial Wave Energy Project
Pennington, New Jersey [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Ocean Power Technologies (OPT), known for its PowerBuoy wave energy device, filed an application for construction permission to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a 50-megawatt (MW) wave power generation project in Oregon, the first request in the U.S. for such a power project on a utility-scale level.
As part of the initial program for the OPT Wave Park to be located at Reedsport, OR, the company expects to install its ocean-tested PowerBuoys approximately 2.5 miles off the coast at a depth of 50 meters initially generating a total of 2 MW. Approval for the full-scale 50 MW wave power plant will follow completion of the initial 2 MW program.
"This application to FERC represents a major step in the development of OPT's wave power projects in the U.S. for large-scale electricity generation," said George Taylor, Chief Executive Officer of OPT. "When completed, this plant will provide renewable power into the grid supplying the West Coast of the U.S."
The company has already consulted key stakeholder groups about its plans and will continue to work closely with these groups over the initial stages of the project. According to the company, a key strength of the PowerBuoy system is its compact nature and low visual impact.
OPT's wave energy converter consists of a vertically oriented column or cylinder that absorbs the rising and falling motion of ocean waves to cause the buoy mechanics to move freely up and down. This movement in turn drives an electric generator that creates usable on-site power or power that can be cabled away to a nearby mainland location.
OPT's PowerBuoy technology was cited in recent U.S. Congressional hearings in support of increasing funding for ocean energy demonstration programs. U.S. Representative Inslee (D-Washington) proposed an amendment to the Deep Ocean Energy Resources (DOER) Act, which would increase the funding for ocean energy demonstration programs from $6 million to $20 million per year. The Congressman also specifically cited the technology being offered by OPT.
As part of the initial program for the OPT Wave Park to be located at Reedsport, OR, the company expects to install its ocean-tested PowerBuoys approximately 2.5 miles off the coast at a depth of 50 meters initially generating a total of 2 MW. Approval for the full-scale 50 MW wave power plant will follow completion of the initial 2 MW program.
"This application to FERC represents a major step in the development of OPT's wave power projects in the U.S. for large-scale electricity generation," said George Taylor, Chief Executive Officer of OPT. "When completed, this plant will provide renewable power into the grid supplying the West Coast of the U.S."
The company has already consulted key stakeholder groups about its plans and will continue to work closely with these groups over the initial stages of the project. According to the company, a key strength of the PowerBuoy system is its compact nature and low visual impact.
OPT's wave energy converter consists of a vertically oriented column or cylinder that absorbs the rising and falling motion of ocean waves to cause the buoy mechanics to move freely up and down. This movement in turn drives an electric generator that creates usable on-site power or power that can be cabled away to a nearby mainland location.
OPT's PowerBuoy technology was cited in recent U.S. Congressional hearings in support of increasing funding for ocean energy demonstration programs. U.S. Representative Inslee (D-Washington) proposed an amendment to the Deep Ocean Energy Resources (DOER) Act, which would increase the funding for ocean energy demonstration programs from $6 million to $20 million per year. The Congressman also specifically cited the technology being offered by OPT.
Indiana Gets Its First Biodiesel Plant
Hammond, Indiana [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] The first operating biodiesel plant in the state of Indiana is being planned by Evergreen Renewables LLC. Located at Wolf Lake Terminals in Hammond, the facility will cost approximately $10 million, and will initially produce 5 million gallons of biodiesel per year made exclusively from soybean oil.
The group aims to start producing biodiesel in the first quarter of 2006 with plans to expand production to 30 million gallons per year. The facility will be constructed to produce biodiesel according to BQ-9000, providing jobs, revenue, and renewable fuels to local communities as well as clear benefits to the environment.
"Biodiesel is simple to use, biodegradable, nontoxic and essentially free of sulfur and smell," said Carl Lisek, Coordinator for South Shore Clean Cities, a U.S. Department of Energy Program. Hammond should be very familiar with this renewable fuel; the City of Hammond school bus fleet has been successfully operating on a biodiesel blend (B20) since the 2001 school year.
Biodiesel, recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency as a clean alternative to regular diesel fuel, reduces carcinogenic emissions and gases related to global warming. More than 600 major fleets use biodiesel nationwide including the National Park Service, state departments of transportation and the U.S. military.
Independent studies show biodiesel has the highest energy balance of any fuel -- a U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Energy study shows that for every unit of fossil fuel used to make biodiesel, 3.2 units of energy are gained in energy output. That's a 320% increase and includes soybean planting, harvesting, fuel production and transportation.
The group aims to start producing biodiesel in the first quarter of 2006 with plans to expand production to 30 million gallons per year. The facility will be constructed to produce biodiesel according to BQ-9000, providing jobs, revenue, and renewable fuels to local communities as well as clear benefits to the environment.
"Biodiesel is simple to use, biodegradable, nontoxic and essentially free of sulfur and smell," said Carl Lisek, Coordinator for South Shore Clean Cities, a U.S. Department of Energy Program. Hammond should be very familiar with this renewable fuel; the City of Hammond school bus fleet has been successfully operating on a biodiesel blend (B20) since the 2001 school year.
Biodiesel, recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency as a clean alternative to regular diesel fuel, reduces carcinogenic emissions and gases related to global warming. More than 600 major fleets use biodiesel nationwide including the National Park Service, state departments of transportation and the U.S. military.
Independent studies show biodiesel has the highest energy balance of any fuel -- a U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Energy study shows that for every unit of fossil fuel used to make biodiesel, 3.2 units of energy are gained in energy output. That's a 320% increase and includes soybean planting, harvesting, fuel production and transportation.
Cashing in on China's renewable energy boom
Reuters
Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:15 AM ET
By Alison Leung
HONG KONG (Reuters) - China is set to spend $200 billion on renewable energy over the next 15 years, and industry players are racing to grab a slice of the action.
That kind of money would buy you an oil firm the size of Chevron and leave change to fund the current renewables programs of all Europe's top oil firms for 25 years.
So from the arid plains of Xinjiang to the rolling hills of sub-tropical Guangdong, Chinese and foreign firms are erecting 40-storey wind turbines, installing solar panels, and conducting tests on corn for biofuel.
Beijing wants a tenth of its energy to come from environmentally friendly sources by 2010 -- a desire driven by soaring air pollution and chronic environmental degradation that is swelling medical bills and provoking discontent.
Projects will need turbines, blades and other power components, which is why General Electric Co., Vestas Wind Systems and Gamesa , as well as homegrown firms China Solar Energy Holdings Ltd. <0155.HK> and Suntech , are expanding capacity in the country.
"Renewable energy will likely become China's next boom sector with oil at historical high prices," said Norman Ho, a fund manager at Value Partners, which has invested in Chinese wind energy components supplier Nanjing Gearbox.
"China needs energy to support its GDP growth."
Crude hit a record above $78 a barrel on Friday.
Analysts like Suntech and Shanghai Electric <2727.HK>, but call attention also to budding niche players such as China Solar and Taiwan's E-ton Solar <3452.TWO>.
"We believe solar energy's high growth prospects, particularly off a small base, make it a viable component of any investment strategy focusing on the renewable energy theme," Merrill Lynch said in a recent research report.
Credit Suisse estimates the compound annual growth rate of China's wind power capacity at 39 percent in 2004-10 and 20 percent in 2010-20. "This represents a remarkable growth potential for manufacturers of wind turbines," Credit Suisse's Angello Chan said.
RISKS
In the short run, teething troubles such as a shortfall of raw materials facing Taiwan solar player Motech Industries <6244.TWO> might be an issue.
And crucially, analysts warn of a potential regulatory about-face or waning enthusiasm, the absence so far of a detailed incentives-and-subsidies plan, and a lack of official experience in the area.
Credit Suisse also warned competition may put downward pressure on wind turbine prices, and thus margins.
Yet if all gels, China -- which claims already to be the top annual investor in renewable energy on the planet -- could leverage the world's highest wind-power capacity potential.
China aims to have 30 gigawatts of installed wind power capacity by 2020, up from just 1 GW last year and powering between 13 and 30 million households at full capacity according to industry estimates.
Beijing's new renewable energy policy, unveiled in January, aims to create a system of financial and policy support for the use of renewable energy, including preferential tariffs for fuels such as biomass.
Beyond 2010, the world's second-largest power user wants to boost consumption from renewable sources to a fifth of its total by 2020 and slash reliance on imported oil.
Alternative energy sated 7 percent of China's needs last year, and the country's top economic planning agency said up to US$188 billion must be invested to reach the 2020 goal. Economic growth hovering at 10 percent will fuel power consumption over coming years anyway.
(For stories on emerging Chinese players in the industry, please click on).
China Solar wants a six-fold profit leap next year, and the nation's top wind turbine maker, Goldwind, is pursuing a U.S. IPO to propel an eight-fold surge in sales to a target of $500 million by 2008.
CLP Holdings <0002.HK>, Hong Kong's dominant power supplier, is planning Asia's largest offshore wind farm in the territory.
And following a successful U.S. IPO by Suntech Power last December, Yingli Solar plans to raise $400 million in the Nasdaq's largest IPO by a Chinese firm, the first of at least five waiting in the wings, sources have told Reuters.
Renewable energy projects need intensive and long term government support. Beijing appears to have the resolve -- and the need -- to push ahead, but a proper system of tax or policy incentives could take years.
"Solar energy today is still expensive," said Chan Ka Keung, managing director at the renewable division of CLP Holdings Ltd.
"It's beyond what we should consider on a commercial basis."
(Additional reporting by Nao Nakanishi and Joy Leung and Emma Graham Harrison in Beijing)
($1=7.988 Yuan)
Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:15 AM ET
By Alison Leung
HONG KONG (Reuters) - China is set to spend $200 billion on renewable energy over the next 15 years, and industry players are racing to grab a slice of the action.
That kind of money would buy you an oil firm the size of Chevron
So from the arid plains of Xinjiang to the rolling hills of sub-tropical Guangdong, Chinese and foreign firms are erecting 40-storey wind turbines, installing solar panels, and conducting tests on corn for biofuel.
Beijing wants a tenth of its energy to come from environmentally friendly sources by 2010 -- a desire driven by soaring air pollution and chronic environmental degradation that is swelling medical bills and provoking discontent.
Projects will need turbines, blades and other power components, which is why General Electric Co.
"Renewable energy will likely become China's next boom sector with oil at historical high prices," said Norman Ho, a fund manager at Value Partners, which has invested in Chinese wind energy components supplier Nanjing Gearbox.
"China needs energy to support its GDP growth."
Crude hit a record above $78 a barrel on Friday.
Analysts like Suntech and Shanghai Electric <2727.HK>, but call attention also to budding niche players such as China Solar and Taiwan's E-ton Solar <3452.TWO>.
"We believe solar energy's high growth prospects, particularly off a small base, make it a viable component of any investment strategy focusing on the renewable energy theme," Merrill Lynch said in a recent research report.
Credit Suisse estimates the compound annual growth rate of China's wind power capacity at 39 percent in 2004-10 and 20 percent in 2010-20. "This represents a remarkable growth potential for manufacturers of wind turbines," Credit Suisse's Angello Chan said.
RISKS
In the short run, teething troubles such as a shortfall of raw materials facing Taiwan solar player Motech Industries <6244.TWO> might be an issue.
And crucially, analysts warn of a potential regulatory about-face or waning enthusiasm, the absence so far of a detailed incentives-and-subsidies plan, and a lack of official experience in the area.
Credit Suisse also warned competition may put downward pressure on wind turbine prices, and thus margins.
Yet if all gels, China -- which claims already to be the top annual investor in renewable energy on the planet -- could leverage the world's highest wind-power capacity potential.
China aims to have 30 gigawatts of installed wind power capacity by 2020, up from just 1 GW last year and powering between 13 and 30 million households at full capacity according to industry estimates.
Beijing's new renewable energy policy, unveiled in January, aims to create a system of financial and policy support for the use of renewable energy, including preferential tariffs for fuels such as biomass.
Beyond 2010, the world's second-largest power user wants to boost consumption from renewable sources to a fifth of its total by 2020 and slash reliance on imported oil.
Alternative energy sated 7 percent of China's needs last year, and the country's top economic planning agency said up to US$188 billion must be invested to reach the 2020 goal. Economic growth hovering at 10 percent will fuel power consumption over coming years anyway.
(For stories on emerging Chinese players in the industry, please click on
China Solar wants a six-fold profit leap next year, and the nation's top wind turbine maker, Goldwind, is pursuing a U.S. IPO to propel an eight-fold surge in sales to a target of $500 million by 2008.
CLP Holdings <0002.HK>, Hong Kong's dominant power supplier, is planning Asia's largest offshore wind farm in the territory.
And following a successful U.S. IPO by Suntech Power last December, Yingli Solar plans to raise $400 million in the Nasdaq's largest IPO by a Chinese firm, the first of at least five waiting in the wings, sources have told Reuters.
Renewable energy projects need intensive and long term government support. Beijing appears to have the resolve -- and the need -- to push ahead, but a proper system of tax or policy incentives could take years.
"Solar energy today is still expensive," said Chan Ka Keung, managing director at the renewable division of CLP Holdings Ltd.
"It's beyond what we should consider on a commercial basis."
(Additional reporting by Nao Nakanishi and Joy Leung and Emma Graham Harrison in Beijing)
($1=7.988 Yuan)
BP and GE to Develop Hydrogen Power Plants and Technologies
GreenBiz
LONDON, July 20, 2006 - BP and GE have announced their intention to jointly develop and deploy hydrogen power projects that dramatically reduce emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from electricity generation.
The world will continue to make extensive use of fossil fuels, such as natural gas and coal, for power generation for the foreseeable future, but technology now allows this to be done more cleanly by creating hydrogen from fossil fuels while capturing and sequestering the carbon as carbon dioxide in deep geological formations. To facilitate this advancement, BP and GE will collaborate on power, carbon capture and sequestration technologies.
"The combination of our two companies' skills and resources in this area is formidable, and is the latest example of our intent to make a real difference in the face of the challenge of climate change," said BP's Vivienne Cox. "BP and GE's strategic approaches to developing increasingly cleaner, lower carbon power options are closely aligned and our skills and strengths are highly complementary."
"Tomorrow's energy mix will include hydrogen - and GE and BP are taking the lead in ensuring progress begins today," said David Calhoun of GE. "This initiative will demonstrate that our companies' leading-edge technologies can make hydrogen production efficient, reliable, and economical for large-scale, commercial power production. Our financial strength will ensure it happens now globally, changing the way we envision our energy future."
BP has already announced plans for two such hydrogen power projects with carbon capture and sequestration in Scotland and California, both of which will use GE technology. Subject to appropriate regulatory and fiscal regimes being in place, and necessary due diligence, the companies have an ambition to progress 10 to 15 further projects over the next decade, including the plants in Scotland and California. Subject to further exploration, the current expectation is that the most appropriate structure may be through creation of a joint venture to invest in hydrogen power projects and a joint development agreement for development of related technology. As a first step, BP and GE would jointly participate in the two hydrogen power projects with carbon capture and sequestration BP has announced - at Peterhead in Scotland and at Carson in Southern California where Scottish and Southern Energy and Edison Mission Energy are partners respectively.
Such low carbon power projects use fossil fuels such as natural gas, petroleum coke or coal for power generation combined with carbon dioxide capture and storage technology. They generate significant quantities of base-load power while capturing and storing some 90% of the carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted, in deep geological formations.
BP and GE will apply some of the world's leading technologies, project experience and assets to optimise the integrated design. The collaborative effort will draw upon the companies' technologies and experience in areas such as coal gasification, reforming technology, gas turbines and carbon capture and storage.
"The combination of coal gasification and carbon capture and sequestration is crucial for clean coal development and presents great opportunities for countries with substantial reserves of coal such as the USA, China and India," says Lewis Gillies, BP's Director of Hydrogen Power.
"GE and BP are combining our resources to develop economically attractive, breakthrough technologies in the area of hydrogen to power. This will allow power producers to use abundant, low-cost fossil fuel resources to generate electricity with very low carbon dioxide emissions," said Edward Lowe, general manager of GE Energy's gasification business.
In addition to the complementary nature of the technologies and experience of the two companies, the collaboration is expected to be further strengthened by the global reach of each of the partners. GE's operations in Houston and BP's operations in London will form the core groups for the hydrogen power collaboration.
LONDON, July 20, 2006 - BP and GE have announced their intention to jointly develop and deploy hydrogen power projects that dramatically reduce emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from electricity generation.
The world will continue to make extensive use of fossil fuels, such as natural gas and coal, for power generation for the foreseeable future, but technology now allows this to be done more cleanly by creating hydrogen from fossil fuels while capturing and sequestering the carbon as carbon dioxide in deep geological formations. To facilitate this advancement, BP and GE will collaborate on power, carbon capture and sequestration technologies.
"The combination of our two companies' skills and resources in this area is formidable, and is the latest example of our intent to make a real difference in the face of the challenge of climate change," said BP's Vivienne Cox. "BP and GE's strategic approaches to developing increasingly cleaner, lower carbon power options are closely aligned and our skills and strengths are highly complementary."
"Tomorrow's energy mix will include hydrogen - and GE and BP are taking the lead in ensuring progress begins today," said David Calhoun of GE. "This initiative will demonstrate that our companies' leading-edge technologies can make hydrogen production efficient, reliable, and economical for large-scale, commercial power production. Our financial strength will ensure it happens now globally, changing the way we envision our energy future."
BP has already announced plans for two such hydrogen power projects with carbon capture and sequestration in Scotland and California, both of which will use GE technology. Subject to appropriate regulatory and fiscal regimes being in place, and necessary due diligence, the companies have an ambition to progress 10 to 15 further projects over the next decade, including the plants in Scotland and California. Subject to further exploration, the current expectation is that the most appropriate structure may be through creation of a joint venture to invest in hydrogen power projects and a joint development agreement for development of related technology. As a first step, BP and GE would jointly participate in the two hydrogen power projects with carbon capture and sequestration BP has announced - at Peterhead in Scotland and at Carson in Southern California where Scottish and Southern Energy and Edison Mission Energy are partners respectively.
Such low carbon power projects use fossil fuels such as natural gas, petroleum coke or coal for power generation combined with carbon dioxide capture and storage technology. They generate significant quantities of base-load power while capturing and storing some 90% of the carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted, in deep geological formations.
BP and GE will apply some of the world's leading technologies, project experience and assets to optimise the integrated design. The collaborative effort will draw upon the companies' technologies and experience in areas such as coal gasification, reforming technology, gas turbines and carbon capture and storage.
"The combination of coal gasification and carbon capture and sequestration is crucial for clean coal development and presents great opportunities for countries with substantial reserves of coal such as the USA, China and India," says Lewis Gillies, BP's Director of Hydrogen Power.
"GE and BP are combining our resources to develop economically attractive, breakthrough technologies in the area of hydrogen to power. This will allow power producers to use abundant, low-cost fossil fuel resources to generate electricity with very low carbon dioxide emissions," said Edward Lowe, general manager of GE Energy's gasification business.
In addition to the complementary nature of the technologies and experience of the two companies, the collaboration is expected to be further strengthened by the global reach of each of the partners. GE's operations in Houston and BP's operations in London will form the core groups for the hydrogen power collaboration.
New Fleet Management Program Helps Companies Cut Costs, Emissions
GreenBiz
SPARKS, Md., and WASHINGTON, D.C., July 19, 2006 - Fleet management company PHH Arval and Environmental Defense have announced the pilot of a new climate-neutral program for vehicle fleets. PHH GreenFleet aims to help companies reduce fleet operating costs, decrease global warming pollution, and meet corporate environmental goals.
PHH GreenFleet is designed to give companies the tools they need to enhance financial and environmental performance. The linkage is simple: burning a gallon of fuel creates greenhouse gas emissions and costs money, so cutting fuel consumption will reduce pollution and fuel costs. The pilot program seeks to:
* Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption in a variety of customized ways, through in-depth analysis, fleet consultation, and objective recommendations.
* Measure greenhouse gas emissions and report on environmental improvements over time.
* Offset remaining emissions via identification and purchase of credible greenhouse gas offsets.
"The millions of fleet vehicles on the road in North America are critical for commerce and economic development, but they also impact the environment through oil and gas consumption and greenhouse gas pollution," according to George Kilroy, president and chief executive officer of PHH Arval. "We are committed to being the industry leader in environmental management by helping our clients measure and reduce these impacts, while improving the bottom line."
As part of PHH Arval's commitment to the environment, the Maryland-based company has also offset its own fleet emissions, making it the first North American fleet management company to employ a climate-neutral fleet. To neutralize the climate impact of its sales fleet, PHH Arval worked with Carbonfund.org, a non-profit organization that provides carbon offset services, to acquire greenhouse gas offsets. By purchasing verified emissions reductions or "offsets," PHH Arval is ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions from its fleet are counterbalanced by reductions of greenhouse gases elsewhere and demonstrating the power of markets to help reduce global warming pollution.
Tom Murray, project manager, Environmental Defense, said, "With the PHH GreenFleet program, we hope to develop a new leadership practice in fleet management by demonstrating that fleets can cost-effectively reduce emissions by improving efficiency, purchasing carbon offsets, and using other innovative pollution reducing tools."
SPARKS, Md., and WASHINGTON, D.C., July 19, 2006 - Fleet management company PHH Arval and Environmental Defense have announced the pilot of a new climate-neutral program for vehicle fleets. PHH GreenFleet aims to help companies reduce fleet operating costs, decrease global warming pollution, and meet corporate environmental goals.
PHH GreenFleet is designed to give companies the tools they need to enhance financial and environmental performance. The linkage is simple: burning a gallon of fuel creates greenhouse gas emissions and costs money, so cutting fuel consumption will reduce pollution and fuel costs. The pilot program seeks to:
* Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption in a variety of customized ways, through in-depth analysis, fleet consultation, and objective recommendations.
* Measure greenhouse gas emissions and report on environmental improvements over time.
* Offset remaining emissions via identification and purchase of credible greenhouse gas offsets.
"The millions of fleet vehicles on the road in North America are critical for commerce and economic development, but they also impact the environment through oil and gas consumption and greenhouse gas pollution," according to George Kilroy, president and chief executive officer of PHH Arval. "We are committed to being the industry leader in environmental management by helping our clients measure and reduce these impacts, while improving the bottom line."
As part of PHH Arval's commitment to the environment, the Maryland-based company has also offset its own fleet emissions, making it the first North American fleet management company to employ a climate-neutral fleet. To neutralize the climate impact of its sales fleet, PHH Arval worked with Carbonfund.org, a non-profit organization that provides carbon offset services, to acquire greenhouse gas offsets. By purchasing verified emissions reductions or "offsets," PHH Arval is ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions from its fleet are counterbalanced by reductions of greenhouse gases elsewhere and demonstrating the power of markets to help reduce global warming pollution.
Tom Murray, project manager, Environmental Defense, said, "With the PHH GreenFleet program, we hope to develop a new leadership practice in fleet management by demonstrating that fleets can cost-effectively reduce emissions by improving efficiency, purchasing carbon offsets, and using other innovative pollution reducing tools."
NREL Shrinks Laboratory's Environmental Footprint
GreenBiz
GOLDEN, Colo., July 19, 2006 - By installing on-site solar and wind power systems and purchasing renewable energy certificates, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has pledged to offset not only the total energy use of its buildings, but also the energy used by NREL vehicles, employee commuting, air travel, and other "life cycle" energy consumption as well.
The Laboratory exceeded its five-year goal as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Climate Leaders Partnership, having cut overall greenhouse gas emissions more than 10 percent since 2000.
"We at NREL are proud to be leaders in energy efficiency and renewable energy," NREL Director Dan Arvizu said, "by both providing the research that helps the nation reduce its dependence on foreign energy sources, and by using those very technologies to make our own facilities the very best they can be."
Several of NREL's laboratory buildings are among the most energy efficient of all comparable federal facilities, while on-site electricity production from wind turbines and solar electric systems contributes 138,000 kilowatt hours annually to the Laboratory's power needs.
At NREL's National Wind Technology Center south of Boulder, when wind turbines used for research and development are operating, the electricity they generate is used to meet on-site power needs. Thermal energy sources include solar hot water systems and ventilation air preheat systems. Passive solar heating and day-lighting are used extensively.
All new construction at NREL is committed to exceed the current Federal Model Energy Code by at least 30 percent.
The Laboratory's new Science and Technology Facility, a 71,000-square-foot laboratory structure scheduled for completion this summer, is projected to use 38 percent less energy than the "base building" standard and was designed in accordance with criteria for Gold-level LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.
NREL's comprehensive energy management program also includes retrofitting with new energy-efficient equipment and devices, peak demand management, an energy monitoring and metering project, as well as regular staff education on energy-reduction practices.
NREL's achievements in energy efficiency and renewable energy use are especially noteworthy for an institution of its size and scope. NREL encompasses 618 acres on several sites, with 665,000 square feet of laboratory and office space, housing more than 1,100 researchers and support staff.
At the same time, NREL has played an important role in reducing energy consumption and increasing the use of renewable energy across the entire federal government, largely through the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). NREL’s technical leadership in support of FEMP efforts to advance the use of renewables within the Federal sector has helped the government exceed its goal of obtaining 2.5 percent of its electricity needs from renewable energy sources by September 30, 2005.
The Laboratory’s broader research mission also promotes the development of innovative, energy-efficient building processes and technologies by the residential and commercial building industries nationwide, and internationally.
NREL was the first federal pilot partner in the EPA’s Climate Leaders Partnership, and one of only seven original members to establish initial target reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The National Laboratory also was a founding member of EPA’s Green Power Partnership and its Mobile Air Conditioning Climate Protection Partnership. The EPA noted that NREL’s research contributions to the latter effort "will allow the automotive community to prevent over 35 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually and save the average consumer hundreds of dollars over the life of their vehicle."
The EPA additionally praised NREL as "a world leader" credited with "numerous important advances in photovoltaics, wind energy, building technology, advanced vehicle and automotive systems, solar thermal electric, hydrogen, superconductivity, geothermal power and distributed energy."
NREL is the U.S. Department of Energy's primary national laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development. NREL is operated for DOE by Midwest Research Institute and Battelle.
GOLDEN, Colo., July 19, 2006 - By installing on-site solar and wind power systems and purchasing renewable energy certificates, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has pledged to offset not only the total energy use of its buildings, but also the energy used by NREL vehicles, employee commuting, air travel, and other "life cycle" energy consumption as well.
The Laboratory exceeded its five-year goal as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Climate Leaders Partnership, having cut overall greenhouse gas emissions more than 10 percent since 2000.
"We at NREL are proud to be leaders in energy efficiency and renewable energy," NREL Director Dan Arvizu said, "by both providing the research that helps the nation reduce its dependence on foreign energy sources, and by using those very technologies to make our own facilities the very best they can be."
Several of NREL's laboratory buildings are among the most energy efficient of all comparable federal facilities, while on-site electricity production from wind turbines and solar electric systems contributes 138,000 kilowatt hours annually to the Laboratory's power needs.
At NREL's National Wind Technology Center south of Boulder, when wind turbines used for research and development are operating, the electricity they generate is used to meet on-site power needs. Thermal energy sources include solar hot water systems and ventilation air preheat systems. Passive solar heating and day-lighting are used extensively.
All new construction at NREL is committed to exceed the current Federal Model Energy Code by at least 30 percent.
The Laboratory's new Science and Technology Facility, a 71,000-square-foot laboratory structure scheduled for completion this summer, is projected to use 38 percent less energy than the "base building" standard and was designed in accordance with criteria for Gold-level LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.
NREL's comprehensive energy management program also includes retrofitting with new energy-efficient equipment and devices, peak demand management, an energy monitoring and metering project, as well as regular staff education on energy-reduction practices.
NREL's achievements in energy efficiency and renewable energy use are especially noteworthy for an institution of its size and scope. NREL encompasses 618 acres on several sites, with 665,000 square feet of laboratory and office space, housing more than 1,100 researchers and support staff.
At the same time, NREL has played an important role in reducing energy consumption and increasing the use of renewable energy across the entire federal government, largely through the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). NREL’s technical leadership in support of FEMP efforts to advance the use of renewables within the Federal sector has helped the government exceed its goal of obtaining 2.5 percent of its electricity needs from renewable energy sources by September 30, 2005.
The Laboratory’s broader research mission also promotes the development of innovative, energy-efficient building processes and technologies by the residential and commercial building industries nationwide, and internationally.
NREL was the first federal pilot partner in the EPA’s Climate Leaders Partnership, and one of only seven original members to establish initial target reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The National Laboratory also was a founding member of EPA’s Green Power Partnership and its Mobile Air Conditioning Climate Protection Partnership. The EPA noted that NREL’s research contributions to the latter effort "will allow the automotive community to prevent over 35 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually and save the average consumer hundreds of dollars over the life of their vehicle."
The EPA additionally praised NREL as "a world leader" credited with "numerous important advances in photovoltaics, wind energy, building technology, advanced vehicle and automotive systems, solar thermal electric, hydrogen, superconductivity, geothermal power and distributed energy."
NREL is the U.S. Department of Energy's primary national laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development. NREL is operated for DOE by Midwest Research Institute and Battelle.
NREL Shrinks Laboratory's Environmental Footprint
GreenBiz
GOLDEN, Colo., July 19, 2006 - By installing on-site solar and wind power systems and purchasing renewable energy certificates, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has pledged to offset not only the total energy use of its buildings, but also the energy used by NREL vehicles, employee commuting, air travel, and other "life cycle" energy consumption as well.
The Laboratory exceeded its five-year goal as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Climate Leaders Partnership, having cut overall greenhouse gas emissions more than 10 percent since 2000.
"We at NREL are proud to be leaders in energy efficiency and renewable energy," NREL Director Dan Arvizu said, "by both providing the research that helps the nation reduce its dependence on foreign energy sources, and by using those very technologies to make our own facilities the very best they can be."
Several of NREL's laboratory buildings are among the most energy efficient of all comparable federal facilities, while on-site electricity production from wind turbines and solar electric systems contributes 138,000 kilowatt hours annually to the Laboratory's power needs.
At NREL's National Wind Technology Center south of Boulder, when wind turbines used for research and development are operating, the electricity they generate is used to meet on-site power needs. Thermal energy sources include solar hot water systems and ventilation air preheat systems. Passive solar heating and day-lighting are used extensively.
All new construction at NREL is committed to exceed the current Federal Model Energy Code by at least 30 percent.
The Laboratory's new Science and Technology Facility, a 71,000-square-foot laboratory structure scheduled for completion this summer, is projected to use 38 percent less energy than the "base building" standard and was designed in accordance with criteria for Gold-level LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.
NREL's comprehensive energy management program also includes retrofitting with new energy-efficient equipment and devices, peak demand management, an energy monitoring and metering project, as well as regular staff education on energy-reduction practices.
NREL's achievements in energy efficiency and renewable energy use are especially noteworthy for an institution of its size and scope. NREL encompasses 618 acres on several sites, with 665,000 square feet of laboratory and office space, housing more than 1,100 researchers and support staff.
At the same time, NREL has played an important role in reducing energy consumption and increasing the use of renewable energy across the entire federal government, largely through the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). NREL’s technical leadership in support of FEMP efforts to advance the use of renewables within the Federal sector has helped the government exceed its goal of obtaining 2.5 percent of its electricity needs from renewable energy sources by September 30, 2005.
The Laboratory’s broader research mission also promotes the development of innovative, energy-efficient building processes and technologies by the residential and commercial building industries nationwide, and internationally.
NREL was the first federal pilot partner in the EPA’s Climate Leaders Partnership, and one of only seven original members to establish initial target reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The National Laboratory also was a founding member of EPA’s Green Power Partnership and its Mobile Air Conditioning Climate Protection Partnership. The EPA noted that NREL’s research contributions to the latter effort "will allow the automotive community to prevent over 35 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually and save the average consumer hundreds of dollars over the life of their vehicle."
The EPA additionally praised NREL as "a world leader" credited with "numerous important advances in photovoltaics, wind energy, building technology, advanced vehicle and automotive systems, solar thermal electric, hydrogen, superconductivity, geothermal power and distributed energy."
NREL is the U.S. Department of Energy's primary national laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development. NREL is operated for DOE by Midwest Research Institute and Battelle.
GOLDEN, Colo., July 19, 2006 - By installing on-site solar and wind power systems and purchasing renewable energy certificates, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has pledged to offset not only the total energy use of its buildings, but also the energy used by NREL vehicles, employee commuting, air travel, and other "life cycle" energy consumption as well.
The Laboratory exceeded its five-year goal as part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Climate Leaders Partnership, having cut overall greenhouse gas emissions more than 10 percent since 2000.
"We at NREL are proud to be leaders in energy efficiency and renewable energy," NREL Director Dan Arvizu said, "by both providing the research that helps the nation reduce its dependence on foreign energy sources, and by using those very technologies to make our own facilities the very best they can be."
Several of NREL's laboratory buildings are among the most energy efficient of all comparable federal facilities, while on-site electricity production from wind turbines and solar electric systems contributes 138,000 kilowatt hours annually to the Laboratory's power needs.
At NREL's National Wind Technology Center south of Boulder, when wind turbines used for research and development are operating, the electricity they generate is used to meet on-site power needs. Thermal energy sources include solar hot water systems and ventilation air preheat systems. Passive solar heating and day-lighting are used extensively.
All new construction at NREL is committed to exceed the current Federal Model Energy Code by at least 30 percent.
The Laboratory's new Science and Technology Facility, a 71,000-square-foot laboratory structure scheduled for completion this summer, is projected to use 38 percent less energy than the "base building" standard and was designed in accordance with criteria for Gold-level LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.
NREL's comprehensive energy management program also includes retrofitting with new energy-efficient equipment and devices, peak demand management, an energy monitoring and metering project, as well as regular staff education on energy-reduction practices.
NREL's achievements in energy efficiency and renewable energy use are especially noteworthy for an institution of its size and scope. NREL encompasses 618 acres on several sites, with 665,000 square feet of laboratory and office space, housing more than 1,100 researchers and support staff.
At the same time, NREL has played an important role in reducing energy consumption and increasing the use of renewable energy across the entire federal government, largely through the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). NREL’s technical leadership in support of FEMP efforts to advance the use of renewables within the Federal sector has helped the government exceed its goal of obtaining 2.5 percent of its electricity needs from renewable energy sources by September 30, 2005.
The Laboratory’s broader research mission also promotes the development of innovative, energy-efficient building processes and technologies by the residential and commercial building industries nationwide, and internationally.
NREL was the first federal pilot partner in the EPA’s Climate Leaders Partnership, and one of only seven original members to establish initial target reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The National Laboratory also was a founding member of EPA’s Green Power Partnership and its Mobile Air Conditioning Climate Protection Partnership. The EPA noted that NREL’s research contributions to the latter effort "will allow the automotive community to prevent over 35 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually and save the average consumer hundreds of dollars over the life of their vehicle."
The EPA additionally praised NREL as "a world leader" credited with "numerous important advances in photovoltaics, wind energy, building technology, advanced vehicle and automotive systems, solar thermal electric, hydrogen, superconductivity, geothermal power and distributed energy."
NREL is the U.S. Department of Energy's primary national laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development. NREL is operated for DOE by Midwest Research Institute and Battelle.
Sundance Channel Goes Green in Primetime
GreenBiz
NEW YORK, July 21, 2006 - The Sundance Channel will launch a weekly primetime programming block focusing on environmental topics, beginning in early 2007. Consisting of three hours of hosted programming, Sundance Channel Green will present original series and documentary premieres about the earth's ecology and concepts of "green" living that balance human needs with responsible environmental stewardship.
Robert Redford, environmental activist and the founder of Sundance Channel said, "Once in awhile forces converge and affect social change. For some, this can be unsettling, for others, a time for optimism and new opportunity. For Sundance Channel, this is one of those times. Sundance Channel Green is a new initiative and a chance to play some part in making a difference in the world."
In addition to Redford, a number of public figures have expressed their support for the establishment of Sundance Channel Green, including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and President of the Waterkeeper Alliance, actor Leonardo DiCaprio, member of the NRDC Board of Directors and widely acknowledged environmental advocate, and actress Cameron Diaz, a leading environmental activist of her generation.
"The issue of environmental sustainability is gaining tremendous traction in the marketplace," said David Refkin, Director of Sustainable Development for Time Inc. "As consumers begin to weigh the environmental impact of the decisions they make in daily life, they will look for proven, credible sources of information to guide their decision-making. It is essential that consumers have that resource available on the TV dial and now, Sundance Channel will fill that need."
Roger Keating, President of Time Warner Cable's Los Angeles Division said, "This is the right time for this idea. Time Warner Cable L.A. looks forward to the arrival of Sundance Channel Green.
Dan Hartman, VP Programming, DirecTV Inc. said, "Documentaries like Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth powerfully demonstrate the relevance of, and demand for, so-called green programming."
Sundance Channel Green reflects a current tipping point in the public's growing awareness of ecological issues and the trend towards environmentally sustainable approaches to modern living. The destination is designed to be both informative and entertaining, with an emphasis on information, practical advice and community building. Sundance Channel Green will feature a number of high-profile hosts, each of whom will serve as a knowledgeable guide to the evening's line-up, and the world of "green" in general.
Sundance Channel Green will consist of the following program elements:
1. Original Series: Change Agents: a high energy, story and character-driven documentary series about the people and projects that are on the front lines of environmental sustainability and innovation.
2. Interstitial Series: Sundance Channel will launch several interstitial series that will highlight a range of environmental issues and offer viewers innovative suggestions to effect change in their own lives.
3. Documentaries: The block will feature compelling feature-length documentary premieres and news specials on environmental subjects.
Sundance Channel Green will further extend to the Channel's website, sundancechannel.com through a portal, called ECO-MMUNITY. This initiative will seek to foster the growth of a robust online community by providing a unique forum for eco-minded consumers, companies and organizations to interact, share ideas and, create initiatives for change.
Plans are also underway to make Sundance Channel Green programming available via digital platforms such as video-on-demand, online, download-to-own and wireless. Specific "green"-related content will also be produced and acquired for these platforms, including short films, behind-the-scenes or "making of" footage, and exclusive "extended" footage.
NEW YORK, July 21, 2006 - The Sundance Channel will launch a weekly primetime programming block focusing on environmental topics, beginning in early 2007. Consisting of three hours of hosted programming, Sundance Channel Green will present original series and documentary premieres about the earth's ecology and concepts of "green" living that balance human needs with responsible environmental stewardship.
Robert Redford, environmental activist and the founder of Sundance Channel said, "Once in awhile forces converge and affect social change. For some, this can be unsettling, for others, a time for optimism and new opportunity. For Sundance Channel, this is one of those times. Sundance Channel Green is a new initiative and a chance to play some part in making a difference in the world."
In addition to Redford, a number of public figures have expressed their support for the establishment of Sundance Channel Green, including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and President of the Waterkeeper Alliance, actor Leonardo DiCaprio, member of the NRDC Board of Directors and widely acknowledged environmental advocate, and actress Cameron Diaz, a leading environmental activist of her generation.
"The issue of environmental sustainability is gaining tremendous traction in the marketplace," said David Refkin, Director of Sustainable Development for Time Inc. "As consumers begin to weigh the environmental impact of the decisions they make in daily life, they will look for proven, credible sources of information to guide their decision-making. It is essential that consumers have that resource available on the TV dial and now, Sundance Channel will fill that need."
Roger Keating, President of Time Warner Cable's Los Angeles Division said, "This is the right time for this idea. Time Warner Cable L.A. looks forward to the arrival of Sundance Channel Green.
Dan Hartman, VP Programming, DirecTV Inc. said, "Documentaries like Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth powerfully demonstrate the relevance of, and demand for, so-called green programming."
Sundance Channel Green reflects a current tipping point in the public's growing awareness of ecological issues and the trend towards environmentally sustainable approaches to modern living. The destination is designed to be both informative and entertaining, with an emphasis on information, practical advice and community building. Sundance Channel Green will feature a number of high-profile hosts, each of whom will serve as a knowledgeable guide to the evening's line-up, and the world of "green" in general.
Sundance Channel Green will consist of the following program elements:
1. Original Series: Change Agents: a high energy, story and character-driven documentary series about the people and projects that are on the front lines of environmental sustainability and innovation.
2. Interstitial Series: Sundance Channel will launch several interstitial series that will highlight a range of environmental issues and offer viewers innovative suggestions to effect change in their own lives.
3. Documentaries: The block will feature compelling feature-length documentary premieres and news specials on environmental subjects.
Sundance Channel Green will further extend to the Channel's website, sundancechannel.com through a portal, called ECO-MMUNITY. This initiative will seek to foster the growth of a robust online community by providing a unique forum for eco-minded consumers, companies and organizations to interact, share ideas and, create initiatives for change.
Plans are also underway to make Sundance Channel Green programming available via digital platforms such as video-on-demand, online, download-to-own and wireless. Specific "green"-related content will also be produced and acquired for these platforms, including short films, behind-the-scenes or "making of" footage, and exclusive "extended" footage.
Supply and Da Man: Companies that green their supply chains can find savings galore
Grist Magazine
By Joel Makower
18 Jul 2006
How many light bulbs does it take to change a supply chain? In the case of Baxter Healthcare Corp., just three.
When Jenni Cawein, manager of corporate environmental health and safety engineering at the Illinois-based $9.8 billion health-care giant, arrived six years ago, she saw that the company was losing ground on waste. "I asked my boss, 'Who's working with purchasing?' It turned out it was nobody," she says. Cawein set out to build a case for integrating environmental criteria into the company's procurement process.
"I asked what the purchasing department cared about the most," Cawein explains. "I did a lot of research, and of course they care about cost reduction, and had made certain commitments to reduce costs."
Armed with details about the department's goals, Cawein set up a time to address the purchasing staff. At that meeting, she offered an illustrative example involving three fluorescent light bulbs: one cost $1 and was expected to last 2 years; another cost $5 and lasted 8 years; the third cost $2 and lasted 2 years, but used 30 percent less electricity.
"When I ran the actual numbers, including real costs of electricity for all of our facilities around the world, plus labor and disposal costs, and showed them the data, their eyes just opened up," says Cawein. "I showed them that the cheapest bulb would cost us $50 million more than the most efficient bulb."
Cawein's message was clear: greening the supply chain is a strategic, bottom-line issue. Largely as a result of Cawein's light-bulb inspiration, Baxter has embarked on an effort to integrate environmental thinking into every aspect of supply-chain management.
Baxter is not alone in embracing supply-chain environmental management (though its effort may be one of the more ambitious). Companies in a number of sectors have been driving environmental thinking increasingly further upstream -- typically beginning with a handful of their biggest suppliers, and expanding those successes to smaller players.
Link Link, Nudge Nudge
In recent years, the supply-chain environmental management, or SCEM, movement appears to have gathered steam, and has given birth to some new industry and government initiatives. The U.S. EPA's Green Suppliers Network, a public-private partnership, aims to help suppliers and manufacturers eliminate waste, save money, and reduce their eco-impact. Members of the network -- including Abbott Laboratories, General Motors, GlaxoSmithKline, Herman Miller, Johnson & Johnson, Pratt & Whitney, and Steelcase -- focus on the root causes of waste, enabling them to decrease the use of toxic and non-renewable materials, use energy more efficiently, reduce labor costs, and promote greater employee participation in environmental-improvement activities.
At Baxter, SCEM isn't limited to buying light bulbs -- or, for that matter, to procurement itself. Its efforts extend from the manufacturing floor all the way to end users, primarily hospitals and doctors' offices.
Once Cawein helped her company's purchasing department understand the business value of SCEM, the next step was to bring manufacturing into the fold. Like many companies, Baxter has embraced the concept of "lean manufacturing," viewed by business gurus as being to the 21st century what "mass production" was to the 20th.
Lean manufacturing centers around the identification and elimination of waste. Its touted benefits are cuts as great as 50 percent in production costs, number of personnel, time required to get new products into the field, plus higher quality, higher profitability, and increased flexibility, among other things. In lean-manufacturing systems, waste-free, "continuous one-piece work flow" processes are highly reliant upon real-time supply-chain reliability. Lean manufacturing's focus on waste and procurement creates an attractive partner for SCEM: the former looks at things from a system-wide view, while the latter delves into the nitty-gritty process steps.
Baxter's supply-chain efforts extend downstream as well. The company's participation in another program co-sponsored by EPA, Hospitals for a Healthy Environment, has enabled it to better understand some of the end-of-life issues its products encounter inside health-care facilities. That, in turn, has helped Baxter work with suppliers to make changes in packaging and materials that reduce customer waste. In one case involving a medical-grade plastic that usually ended up in landfills, the manufacturer was able to get government funding to help develop a less-wasteful alternative. "I would never have dreamed," says Cawein, "that there was as much government seed funding for these technologies as there is."
If You've Got the Money, Honey, I've Got the SCEM
Efforts like Baxter's demand that companies already have in place a firm environmental commitment and some strong management systems. A benchmarking survey of large companies conducted several years ago by Business for Social Responsibility found that companies with leading supply-chain practices shared common organizational characteristics, including a strong commitment to environmental stewardship; a desire to serve as a model for their industry; clear, consistent, and frequent internal communication and communication with suppliers; ongoing supplier education; and continuous improvement through built-in feedback mechanisms.
Such qualities, BSR concluded, are what separate ad hoc, reactive approaches to supply-chain management from more holistic, strategic approaches like Baxter's.
Cawein will be the first to tell you that making such shifts isn't easy. "You've got to be persistent and patient," she counsels. "You're talking about culture change. It's going to take a while. What I tell myself is that as long as I'm making steps forward, I'm happy. I expect this [effort to improve] will never end if we do it right."
Learning how to talk with procurement folks is key, she says. "You have to focus on your own internal people who are responsible for suppliers first, and that will take you a while. Environmental people on their own cannot do this. They tend to talk in generalities, and purchasing people tend to talk in hard facts. When you talk about cost savings, you've got to be specific. That's the thing that really started to bring them over. It has to be quantifiable."
In the end, it's the economics, stupid. If you can convince the powers that be that there's a way to save money beyond the purchase price -- and then can show them that it comes out of a specific budget -- you can break through the purchasing department's traditional reluctance to change vendors or products, says Cawein. "You've got to show them the link and prove it to them. Once they understand that it's not funny money, they go out and start negotiating."
By Joel Makower
18 Jul 2006
How many light bulbs does it take to change a supply chain? In the case of Baxter Healthcare Corp., just three.
When Jenni Cawein, manager of corporate environmental health and safety engineering at the Illinois-based $9.8 billion health-care giant, arrived six years ago, she saw that the company was losing ground on waste. "I asked my boss, 'Who's working with purchasing?' It turned out it was nobody," she says. Cawein set out to build a case for integrating environmental criteria into the company's procurement process.
"I asked what the purchasing department cared about the most," Cawein explains. "I did a lot of research, and of course they care about cost reduction, and had made certain commitments to reduce costs."
Armed with details about the department's goals, Cawein set up a time to address the purchasing staff. At that meeting, she offered an illustrative example involving three fluorescent light bulbs: one cost $1 and was expected to last 2 years; another cost $5 and lasted 8 years; the third cost $2 and lasted 2 years, but used 30 percent less electricity.
"When I ran the actual numbers, including real costs of electricity for all of our facilities around the world, plus labor and disposal costs, and showed them the data, their eyes just opened up," says Cawein. "I showed them that the cheapest bulb would cost us $50 million more than the most efficient bulb."
Cawein's message was clear: greening the supply chain is a strategic, bottom-line issue. Largely as a result of Cawein's light-bulb inspiration, Baxter has embarked on an effort to integrate environmental thinking into every aspect of supply-chain management.
Baxter is not alone in embracing supply-chain environmental management (though its effort may be one of the more ambitious). Companies in a number of sectors have been driving environmental thinking increasingly further upstream -- typically beginning with a handful of their biggest suppliers, and expanding those successes to smaller players.
Link Link, Nudge Nudge
In recent years, the supply-chain environmental management, or SCEM, movement appears to have gathered steam, and has given birth to some new industry and government initiatives. The U.S. EPA's Green Suppliers Network, a public-private partnership, aims to help suppliers and manufacturers eliminate waste, save money, and reduce their eco-impact. Members of the network -- including Abbott Laboratories, General Motors, GlaxoSmithKline, Herman Miller, Johnson & Johnson, Pratt & Whitney, and Steelcase -- focus on the root causes of waste, enabling them to decrease the use of toxic and non-renewable materials, use energy more efficiently, reduce labor costs, and promote greater employee participation in environmental-improvement activities.
At Baxter, SCEM isn't limited to buying light bulbs -- or, for that matter, to procurement itself. Its efforts extend from the manufacturing floor all the way to end users, primarily hospitals and doctors' offices.
Once Cawein helped her company's purchasing department understand the business value of SCEM, the next step was to bring manufacturing into the fold. Like many companies, Baxter has embraced the concept of "lean manufacturing," viewed by business gurus as being to the 21st century what "mass production" was to the 20th.
Lean manufacturing centers around the identification and elimination of waste. Its touted benefits are cuts as great as 50 percent in production costs, number of personnel, time required to get new products into the field, plus higher quality, higher profitability, and increased flexibility, among other things. In lean-manufacturing systems, waste-free, "continuous one-piece work flow" processes are highly reliant upon real-time supply-chain reliability. Lean manufacturing's focus on waste and procurement creates an attractive partner for SCEM: the former looks at things from a system-wide view, while the latter delves into the nitty-gritty process steps.
Baxter's supply-chain efforts extend downstream as well. The company's participation in another program co-sponsored by EPA, Hospitals for a Healthy Environment, has enabled it to better understand some of the end-of-life issues its products encounter inside health-care facilities. That, in turn, has helped Baxter work with suppliers to make changes in packaging and materials that reduce customer waste. In one case involving a medical-grade plastic that usually ended up in landfills, the manufacturer was able to get government funding to help develop a less-wasteful alternative. "I would never have dreamed," says Cawein, "that there was as much government seed funding for these technologies as there is."
If You've Got the Money, Honey, I've Got the SCEM
Efforts like Baxter's demand that companies already have in place a firm environmental commitment and some strong management systems. A benchmarking survey of large companies conducted several years ago by Business for Social Responsibility found that companies with leading supply-chain practices shared common organizational characteristics, including a strong commitment to environmental stewardship; a desire to serve as a model for their industry; clear, consistent, and frequent internal communication and communication with suppliers; ongoing supplier education; and continuous improvement through built-in feedback mechanisms.
Such qualities, BSR concluded, are what separate ad hoc, reactive approaches to supply-chain management from more holistic, strategic approaches like Baxter's.
Cawein will be the first to tell you that making such shifts isn't easy. "You've got to be persistent and patient," she counsels. "You're talking about culture change. It's going to take a while. What I tell myself is that as long as I'm making steps forward, I'm happy. I expect this [effort to improve] will never end if we do it right."
Learning how to talk with procurement folks is key, she says. "You have to focus on your own internal people who are responsible for suppliers first, and that will take you a while. Environmental people on their own cannot do this. They tend to talk in generalities, and purchasing people tend to talk in hard facts. When you talk about cost savings, you've got to be specific. That's the thing that really started to bring them over. It has to be quantifiable."
In the end, it's the economics, stupid. If you can convince the powers that be that there's a way to save money beyond the purchase price -- and then can show them that it comes out of a specific budget -- you can break through the purchasing department's traditional reluctance to change vendors or products, says Cawein. "You've got to show them the link and prove it to them. Once they understand that it's not funny money, they go out and start negotiating."
Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)
Source: Green Electronics Council
EPEAT is an environmental procurement tool designed to help institutional purchasers in the public and private sectors evaluate, compare and select desktop computers, notebook computers and monitors based on their environmental attributes. At the same time it helps manufacturers promote environmentally preferable products. EPEAT is the implementation of the IEEE 1680 Standard for Environmental Assessment of Personal Computer products (including laptop and desktop computers, and monitors).
EPEAT is an environmental procurement tool designed to help institutional purchasers in the public and private sectors evaluate, compare and select desktop computers, notebook computers and monitors based on their environmental attributes. At the same time it helps manufacturers promote environmentally preferable products. EPEAT is the implementation of the IEEE 1680 Standard for Environmental Assessment of Personal Computer products (including laptop and desktop computers, and monitors).
Wind Energy: Texas Blows Hot Air
Associated Press 07:52 AM Jul, 25, 2006
DALLAS -- Long known as a top oil- and natural gas-producing state, Texas has gained new energy acclaim by becoming the nation's top producer of wind energy.
Texas capacity stands at 2,370 megawatts, enough to power 600,000 average-sized homes a year, according to a midyear report released Tuesday by the American Wind Energy Association. That puts Texas slightly ahead of California, the nation's leader since 1981. California has 2,323 megawatts of capacity.
The total U.S. capacity is 9,971 megawatts. So far this year, Texas has added 375 megawatts, or 46 percent of the total 822 megawatts brought online nationwide.
Last year, wind energy generation grew 35 percent nationwide, adding 2,431 megawatts, but that fell short of the projected 2,500. The wind association believes it can add 3,000 megawatts nationwide this year, even if that means another 2,178 megawatts by year's end.
"There are substantially more developments in the pipeline," said Randall Swisher, the association's executive director. "We are just about where we thought we would be in terms of appearing to be on course for another industry record for the year."
Texas had slowly been creeping up on California the past few years, so taking the top spot was inevitable, wind energy consultants said. A favorable business and permitting climate along with plentiful land have attracted investments from as far away as Ireland.
Mike Sloan, president of Austin-based Virtus Energy Research Associates, estimates about $2 billion will be invested in wind energy development statewide this year and about $4.5 billion nationwide.
"Wind energy is a prudent hedging vehicle," Sloan said. "So many policy leaders around the country see the importance of energy diversity and how homegrown renewables make a lot of sense."
Next, Texas wants to be home to more than just the place with the most wind energy generation capacity, said Jerry Patterson, the state's land commissioner. Patterson said he believes Texas can be an industry hub, just as it has been for oil and natural gas.
In addition to significant statewide developments, Texas has signed two agreements since last fall with developers to build offshore wind farms along the Gulf Coast.
Wind energy, however, still has a long way to go before it's considered conventional rather than an alternative. It makes up about 1 percent of the nation's electricity. To become an attractive investment, wind farm developers often rely on federal tax credits.
For the next 18 months, projects coming online receive these credits of 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour. Those incentives are good for 10 years thereafter. But there is no guarantee that any projects completed after 2007 will receive those tax credits and that discourages long-term development, energy officials said.
Energy consultant Bruce Bailey is confident some kind of subsidy will be available after 2007. Bailey, who is president of AWS Truewind LLC in Albany, New York, said federal lawmakers are becoming increasingly more bullish on this renewable energy and won't likely let it expire without an extension.
DALLAS -- Long known as a top oil- and natural gas-producing state, Texas has gained new energy acclaim by becoming the nation's top producer of wind energy.
Texas capacity stands at 2,370 megawatts, enough to power 600,000 average-sized homes a year, according to a midyear report released Tuesday by the American Wind Energy Association. That puts Texas slightly ahead of California, the nation's leader since 1981. California has 2,323 megawatts of capacity.
The total U.S. capacity is 9,971 megawatts. So far this year, Texas has added 375 megawatts, or 46 percent of the total 822 megawatts brought online nationwide.
Last year, wind energy generation grew 35 percent nationwide, adding 2,431 megawatts, but that fell short of the projected 2,500. The wind association believes it can add 3,000 megawatts nationwide this year, even if that means another 2,178 megawatts by year's end.
"There are substantially more developments in the pipeline," said Randall Swisher, the association's executive director. "We are just about where we thought we would be in terms of appearing to be on course for another industry record for the year."
Texas had slowly been creeping up on California the past few years, so taking the top spot was inevitable, wind energy consultants said. A favorable business and permitting climate along with plentiful land have attracted investments from as far away as Ireland.
Mike Sloan, president of Austin-based Virtus Energy Research Associates, estimates about $2 billion will be invested in wind energy development statewide this year and about $4.5 billion nationwide.
"Wind energy is a prudent hedging vehicle," Sloan said. "So many policy leaders around the country see the importance of energy diversity and how homegrown renewables make a lot of sense."
Next, Texas wants to be home to more than just the place with the most wind energy generation capacity, said Jerry Patterson, the state's land commissioner. Patterson said he believes Texas can be an industry hub, just as it has been for oil and natural gas.
In addition to significant statewide developments, Texas has signed two agreements since last fall with developers to build offshore wind farms along the Gulf Coast.
Wind energy, however, still has a long way to go before it's considered conventional rather than an alternative. It makes up about 1 percent of the nation's electricity. To become an attractive investment, wind farm developers often rely on federal tax credits.
For the next 18 months, projects coming online receive these credits of 1.9 cents per kilowatt hour. Those incentives are good for 10 years thereafter. But there is no guarantee that any projects completed after 2007 will receive those tax credits and that discourages long-term development, energy officials said.
Energy consultant Bruce Bailey is confident some kind of subsidy will be available after 2007. Bailey, who is president of AWS Truewind LLC in Albany, New York, said federal lawmakers are becoming increasingly more bullish on this renewable energy and won't likely let it expire without an extension.
Detailed How-To on Conserving Gas
Check this out...
http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1510
http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1510
Reader Responds to Mr. Lindzen's opinion of Al Gore's Movie
Some comments from unknown authors to the above:
Huh. It's interesting, but it doesn't sound like
the atmospheric scientist had a clue about what
the social scientists actually said or did.
Lindzen's opinion says:
"Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI
Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to
2003 under the key words "global climate change"
produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts
supported what she referred to as the consensus
view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser,
checked her procedure and found that only 913
of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and
that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly
endorsed the so-called consensus view.
Several actually opposed it."
Benny Peiser talks about Oreskes's paper here:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/NationalPost.htm
and you can get to it from Peiser's home page (as I did)
0.) It's not Nancy Oreskes, it's Naomi Oreskes.
1.) Peiser's paper claims that Oreskes claims
that 75% of the papers supported the
"consensus" ... a far cry from the "all"
claimed by Lindzen.
2.) Oreskes lumped implicit and explicit support
for the consensus, whereas Peiser only looked
for explicit support ... a dramatic difference
in approach.
[[I have no clue how social scientists discern
implicit acceptance, which kind of seems
relevant ... but I'll leave it alone since
Peiser's clearly comparing apples and oranges]]
So clearly Lindzen either didn't understand Peiser's
paper, misquoted it, or perhaps something got munged in
the process of publishing Lindzen's paper, and Lindzen
didn't know or care enough to go back and correct it.
Lindzen seems to argue that you can't prove that any
observed changes are due to human influences, and that
therefore there is no evidence of human influence.
To use a bold example, the environmental alarmists
seem to claim that if I fart in the room and the
room is stinky, the fact that I farted proves why
the room is stinky.
Lindzen seems to claim that if I fart in the room,
and he can show there is some other stinky substance
in the room, then the fact that I farted is irrelevant.
Either way the room stinks, and I think we should look
into air cleaners.
===========================================================
There are several irritating things about both the Lindzen article
and the Peiser study beyond the points previously raised.
First, not only does Lindzen not bother to provide any links, he
doesn't even bother to provide ordinary references, instead using the
kind of vague statements that are suspiciously difficult to check.
Example: "When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it
was claimed that all scientists agreed." You only need to sort
through 52 issues, perhaps several thousand pages, in order to
fact-check this remarkably vague and probably false assertion (am I
expected to believe that Newsweek asserted that ALL scientists -
including particle physicists and petroleum geologists - agreed?).
Similarly, Lindzen refers to "an interview with George Stephanopolous
on ABC" - no dates or program names. And he makes a lot of factual
assertions with no sources whatever. Why do I get the feeling he
doesn't want people to question him too closely?
Second, as Lindzen himself admits, he doesn't seem to understand what
the debate is about. "Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with
the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less
dire than he suggests in his movie..." When discussing the
possibility of 100 million refugees, I don't think the "best"
estimates are as important as the worst plausible case. It's like
buying insurance. And the worst plausible case wasn't even what Gore
illustrated: that would be the loss of both Greenland and the western
Antarctic ice sheet, resulting in a sea-level rise rise of 40 feet
IIRC, and Gore only illustrated what a rise of 20 feet would mean.
So what is the likelihood of a rise of 20 feet? Lindzen doesn't say.
Third, Lindzen just makes things up. "A general characteristic of
Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth
and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without
any external forcing." No, actually, Gore's charts made it clear
that there is plenty of variation in climate and has been for
hundreds of thousands of years. He trusts his audience to see the
trends.
Next, Peiser. We note again the complete absence of supporting links
and footnotes, and vague citations such as "Six eminent researchers
from the Russian Academy of Science and the Israel Space Agency have
just published a startling paper in one of the world's leading space
science journals." Got a date, or a journal title, or a researcher
name, Peiser? Only the Oreskes article and the Bray/Storch survey
(see below) are cited in any meaningful way.
Also note that according to Peiser, if a paper is rejected by Science
it indicates corruption. There couldn't be any other reason Science
might reject a paper.
But most importantly, Peiser says the "recent survey among some 500
international climate researchers ... conducted by Professors Dennis
Bray and Hans von Storch of the German Institute for Coastal
Research" asserts that "a quarter of respondents still question
whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic
changes." I think he's referring to the 2003 survey listed at
http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/surveyframe
.html
But I can't find those exact words anywhere. I do find that for item
8, "We can say for certain that, without change in human behavior,
global warming will definitely occur some time in the future" only
15% of respondents actually disagreed (answered 5-7 on a 1-7 scale).
Another item Peiser may have been looking at was "40. Climate change
is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes" but this item is too
vague; obviously the climate changes of the last 650,000 years
(Gore's longest timeline) were not mostly the result of anthropogenic
causes. Even I would have disagreed, so it's not terribly surprising
that only 55% of respondents agreed. I can't find a more definite
question about human effects on *recent* climate change, so where did
Peiser's statement come from?
The Bray/Storch survey is the most interesting thing I've uncovered
on this "consensus" question. I don't know what % you ought to have
for a consensus, but it's pretty clear from this survey that the vast
majority of climate scientists are convinced that global warming is
happening and the IPCC reports are valuable and reflect the
scientific consensus. Also note the sampling controversy link; I'm
not at all sure that skeptics were not overrepresented in 2003, even
if Bray and Storch are satisfied.
======================= And some more follow up ==============
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/open-thread-on-lindzen-op-ed-in-wsj/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point
Huh. It's interesting, but it doesn't sound like
the atmospheric scientist had a clue about what
the social scientists actually said or did.
Lindzen's opinion says:
"Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI
Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to
2003 under the key words "global climate change"
produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts
supported what she referred to as the consensus
view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser,
checked her procedure and found that only 913
of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and
that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly
endorsed the so-called consensus view.
Several actually opposed it."
Benny Peiser talks about Oreskes's paper here:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/NationalPost.htm
and you can get to it from Peiser's home page (as I did)
0.) It's not Nancy Oreskes, it's Naomi Oreskes.
1.) Peiser's paper claims that Oreskes claims
that 75% of the papers supported the
"consensus" ... a far cry from the "all"
claimed by Lindzen.
2.) Oreskes lumped implicit and explicit support
for the consensus, whereas Peiser only looked
for explicit support ... a dramatic difference
in approach.
[[I have no clue how social scientists discern
implicit acceptance, which kind of seems
relevant ... but I'll leave it alone since
Peiser's clearly comparing apples and oranges]]
So clearly Lindzen either didn't understand Peiser's
paper, misquoted it, or perhaps something got munged in
the process of publishing Lindzen's paper, and Lindzen
didn't know or care enough to go back and correct it.
Lindzen seems to argue that you can't prove that any
observed changes are due to human influences, and that
therefore there is no evidence of human influence.
To use a bold example, the environmental alarmists
seem to claim that if I fart in the room and the
room is stinky, the fact that I farted proves why
the room is stinky.
Lindzen seems to claim that if I fart in the room,
and he can show there is some other stinky substance
in the room, then the fact that I farted is irrelevant.
Either way the room stinks, and I think we should look
into air cleaners.
===========================================================
There are several irritating things about both the Lindzen article
and the Peiser study beyond the points previously raised.
First, not only does Lindzen not bother to provide any links, he
doesn't even bother to provide ordinary references, instead using the
kind of vague statements that are suspiciously difficult to check.
Example: "When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it
was claimed that all scientists agreed." You only need to sort
through 52 issues, perhaps several thousand pages, in order to
fact-check this remarkably vague and probably false assertion (am I
expected to believe that Newsweek asserted that ALL scientists -
including particle physicists and petroleum geologists - agreed?).
Similarly, Lindzen refers to "an interview with George Stephanopolous
on ABC" - no dates or program names. And he makes a lot of factual
assertions with no sources whatever. Why do I get the feeling he
doesn't want people to question him too closely?
Second, as Lindzen himself admits, he doesn't seem to understand what
the debate is about. "Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with
the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less
dire than he suggests in his movie..." When discussing the
possibility of 100 million refugees, I don't think the "best"
estimates are as important as the worst plausible case. It's like
buying insurance. And the worst plausible case wasn't even what Gore
illustrated: that would be the loss of both Greenland and the western
Antarctic ice sheet, resulting in a sea-level rise rise of 40 feet
IIRC, and Gore only illustrated what a rise of 20 feet would mean.
So what is the likelihood of a rise of 20 feet? Lindzen doesn't say.
Third, Lindzen just makes things up. "A general characteristic of
Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth
and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without
any external forcing." No, actually, Gore's charts made it clear
that there is plenty of variation in climate and has been for
hundreds of thousands of years. He trusts his audience to see the
trends.
Next, Peiser. We note again the complete absence of supporting links
and footnotes, and vague citations such as "Six eminent researchers
from the Russian Academy of Science and the Israel Space Agency have
just published a startling paper in one of the world's leading space
science journals." Got a date, or a journal title, or a researcher
name, Peiser? Only the Oreskes article and the Bray/Storch survey
(see below) are cited in any meaningful way.
Also note that according to Peiser, if a paper is rejected by Science
it indicates corruption. There couldn't be any other reason Science
might reject a paper.
But most importantly, Peiser says the "recent survey among some 500
international climate researchers ... conducted by Professors Dennis
Bray and Hans von Storch of the German Institute for Coastal
Research" asserts that "a quarter of respondents still question
whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic
changes." I think he's referring to the 2003 survey listed at
http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/surveyframe
.html
But I can't find those exact words anywhere. I do find that for item
8, "We can say for certain that, without change in human behavior,
global warming will definitely occur some time in the future" only
15% of respondents actually disagreed (answered 5-7 on a 1-7 scale).
Another item Peiser may have been looking at was "40. Climate change
is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes" but this item is too
vague; obviously the climate changes of the last 650,000 years
(Gore's longest timeline) were not mostly the result of anthropogenic
causes. Even I would have disagreed, so it's not terribly surprising
that only 55% of respondents agreed. I can't find a more definite
question about human effects on *recent* climate change, so where did
Peiser's statement come from?
The Bray/Storch survey is the most interesting thing I've uncovered
on this "consensus" question. I don't know what % you ought to have
for a consensus, but it's pretty clear from this survey that the vast
majority of climate scientists are convinced that global warming is
happening and the IPCC reports are valuable and reflect the
scientific consensus. Also note the sampling controversy link; I'm
not at all sure that skeptics were not overrepresented in 2003, even
if Bray and Storch are satisfied.
======================= And some more follow up ==============
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/open-thread-on-lindzen-op-ed-in-wsj/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point
Don't Believe the Hype: Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m.
According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.
Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."
That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.
The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."
So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.
They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.
The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.
Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.
A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.
A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.
There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.
Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.
The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.
More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.
Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m.
According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.
Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."
That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.
The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."
So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.
They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.
The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.
Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.
A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.
A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.
There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.
Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.
The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.
More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.
Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.
Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Walls of Denial are Beginning to Crumble
Valley News
July 22, 2006
Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont will end four decades in politics by introducing legislation that would force the nation's power companies, manufacturers, automobile drivers and others to cut emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases by up to 80 percent over the next half-century, the Rutland Herald reports.
"Pie in the sky," you say?
More like, "About time."
Writing in the most recent National Geographic magazine, Vermont environmentalist and author Bill McKibben points to some of the obvious signs of peril from global warming: killer hurricanes, vanishing Arctic sea ice and the news that 2005 was the warmest year on record.
"Historians, I think, will look back on this as the time when denial finally began to crumble," McKibben wrote. "When we finally began to understand that the planet as we've known it was at stake - and not from a possible scenario, like nuclear war, but from the consumption of the coal and oil and gas that power most of the actions of our lives."
Jeffords's legislation is one of the few signs that this realization has pierced the walls of Congress. As President Bush has shamelessly served his friends in the oil industry by pushing tax breaks, opposing fuel-efficiency standards and refusing to join other nations in battling global warming through the Kyoto Protocol, members of Congress have mostly stood by in silence.
Jeffords and his supporters will have to surmount enormous resistance in the White House and Capitol. Before they reject the notion of dramatic change, however, lawmakers ought to look to the people who sent them to Washington. In this case, Americans impatient with government inaction are forging ahead on their own.
Prompted by financial and environmental considerations, consumers have signed up to purchase hybrid cars, increased the business of local solar energy providers and shopped for local food that doesn't need to be shipped across the nation on gas-guzzling trucks.
Businesses and other institutions have also gotten into the act, building energy-efficient corporate headquarters, running bus fleets on biodiesel fuel and looking for ways to satisfy the growing demand for "green" goods and services.
Wall Street is taking notice: Vinod Khosla, a prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalist, has ramped up investments in firms specializing in solar power, natural gas and ethanol, reports The Wall Street Journal.
Such endeavors, largely unaided by government policies, give a sense of the potential political power behind a serious push to reverse global warming. Just think what could happen if Congress endorsed a combination of incentives and disincentives aimed at taking advantage of the limited time remaining - some estimates give us only a decade - to reduce greenhouse emissions before the damage is irreversible.
The first step would be to begin taxing carbon emissions from power plants, automobiles and other heavy polluters. Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby noted recently that the average Western European uses half as much energy as the average American, largely due to tax policies that make it prohibitively costly to drive gas-guzzling cars, heat big homes and run carbon-belching power plants.
Along with those sticks, the government ought to provide some carrots: tax breaks or other significant economic incentives that speed the shift to greater energy efficiency and less pollution.
But don't just write to your senator and representative and then sit back to hope for the best. As McKibben points out, we have the power to reverse the tide one community at a time.
Every time you buy a head of lettuce from a local farmer, you save the gallons of gas needed to transport it from California. Every time you share a ride to work, you not only clear the air but also set an example of responsibility that echoes from your neighborhoods to the marble halls of Washington, D.C.
July 22, 2006
Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont will end four decades in politics by introducing legislation that would force the nation's power companies, manufacturers, automobile drivers and others to cut emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases by up to 80 percent over the next half-century, the Rutland Herald reports.
"Pie in the sky," you say?
More like, "About time."
Writing in the most recent National Geographic magazine, Vermont environmentalist and author Bill McKibben points to some of the obvious signs of peril from global warming: killer hurricanes, vanishing Arctic sea ice and the news that 2005 was the warmest year on record.
"Historians, I think, will look back on this as the time when denial finally began to crumble," McKibben wrote. "When we finally began to understand that the planet as we've known it was at stake - and not from a possible scenario, like nuclear war, but from the consumption of the coal and oil and gas that power most of the actions of our lives."
Jeffords's legislation is one of the few signs that this realization has pierced the walls of Congress. As President Bush has shamelessly served his friends in the oil industry by pushing tax breaks, opposing fuel-efficiency standards and refusing to join other nations in battling global warming through the Kyoto Protocol, members of Congress have mostly stood by in silence.
Jeffords and his supporters will have to surmount enormous resistance in the White House and Capitol. Before they reject the notion of dramatic change, however, lawmakers ought to look to the people who sent them to Washington. In this case, Americans impatient with government inaction are forging ahead on their own.
Prompted by financial and environmental considerations, consumers have signed up to purchase hybrid cars, increased the business of local solar energy providers and shopped for local food that doesn't need to be shipped across the nation on gas-guzzling trucks.
Businesses and other institutions have also gotten into the act, building energy-efficient corporate headquarters, running bus fleets on biodiesel fuel and looking for ways to satisfy the growing demand for "green" goods and services.
Wall Street is taking notice: Vinod Khosla, a prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalist, has ramped up investments in firms specializing in solar power, natural gas and ethanol, reports The Wall Street Journal.
Such endeavors, largely unaided by government policies, give a sense of the potential political power behind a serious push to reverse global warming. Just think what could happen if Congress endorsed a combination of incentives and disincentives aimed at taking advantage of the limited time remaining - some estimates give us only a decade - to reduce greenhouse emissions before the damage is irreversible.
The first step would be to begin taxing carbon emissions from power plants, automobiles and other heavy polluters. Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby noted recently that the average Western European uses half as much energy as the average American, largely due to tax policies that make it prohibitively costly to drive gas-guzzling cars, heat big homes and run carbon-belching power plants.
Along with those sticks, the government ought to provide some carrots: tax breaks or other significant economic incentives that speed the shift to greater energy efficiency and less pollution.
But don't just write to your senator and representative and then sit back to hope for the best. As McKibben points out, we have the power to reverse the tide one community at a time.
Every time you buy a head of lettuce from a local farmer, you save the gallons of gas needed to transport it from California. Every time you share a ride to work, you not only clear the air but also set an example of responsibility that echoes from your neighborhoods to the marble halls of Washington, D.C.
After the conversion: The search for vegetable-oil motor fuel
For those who have converted their vehicles to vegetable oil, finding sources of fuel is a quest that often reflects who they are and what they do for a living
NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE
Sunday, Jul 23, 2006,Page 12
The quest for secondhand fryer oil to use as a motor fuel sometimes turns on the question of whom you know. But as some restaurant owners and managers have discovered, it is also a question of who you are and what you do for a living.
Take David Selig, the 41-year-old owner of five restaurants in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Cooking flash-fried rice balls, lotus-root chips and vegetarian meatballs, his kitchens produce as much as 266 liters of waste oil each week -- sometimes more than twice the amount needed to run the Dodge Sprinter diesel van that Selig uses in his restaurant and catering businesses.
Selig, who has a four-restaurant chain called Rice and a separate establishment featuring Basque cuisine called N (pronounced enya), had a modified Greasecar conversion kit installed in the van last month.
Since then, he has not had to refill the diesel tank -- only the separate vegetable oil supply -- in nearly 1,600km of New York City driving.
Saving money by using oil as a fuel that had previously been a disposal problem is only part of the reason Selig said he was happy to make the switch.
"It addresses a problem I think the restaurant business has had for a long time," he said.
"We need to be more intelligent about dealing with the waste that we generate. Cost and waste make it hard to survive in this business, and I was motivated to do something about it," he added.
Selig said he had also tried to find gardeners who could use his vegetable waste as compost.
Even a restaurant owner not feeling motivated to run his own car with oil from the deep-fat fryer can turn that waste into a business advantage. Tim Bryant, who runs Marlintini's Grill in Blue Hill, Maine, gives all of his waste oil to Carsten Steenberg from nearby Penobscot. Steenberg uses the oil in his 2006 Volkswagen Jetta diesel.
In return, Steenberg displays large magnetic advertising signs on the front doors of his car.
"It was a no-brainer," Bryant said. "He drives all over with the name of our restaurant on his car."
Steenberg, a 46-year-old business consultant, said he was aware that by installing a parallel fuel system in a new car he might be jeopardizing at least a portion of the automaker's warranty.
"But I have no reservations," he said. "I had the car converted when it was one week old, and it has 7,300 miles [11,680km] on it, all driven on vegetable oil after the first 1,000 miles [1,600km]. It's scary how perfect the setup has been."
Baruch Ben-Yehudah, who runs Everlasting Life, a health food restaurant in Capitol Heights, Maryland, fills his 1991 Mercedes-Benz with oil that had been used to fry tofu, potatoes and vegetable patties.
"It's not just the money," he said. "I did it because I saw what we were doing to the environment and did not want my children to see their father contributing to the problem."
And he added: "I believe in being energy independent. I do not want to give someone else power over my life."
NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE
Sunday, Jul 23, 2006,Page 12
The quest for secondhand fryer oil to use as a motor fuel sometimes turns on the question of whom you know. But as some restaurant owners and managers have discovered, it is also a question of who you are and what you do for a living.
Take David Selig, the 41-year-old owner of five restaurants in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Cooking flash-fried rice balls, lotus-root chips and vegetarian meatballs, his kitchens produce as much as 266 liters of waste oil each week -- sometimes more than twice the amount needed to run the Dodge Sprinter diesel van that Selig uses in his restaurant and catering businesses.
Selig, who has a four-restaurant chain called Rice and a separate establishment featuring Basque cuisine called N (pronounced enya), had a modified Greasecar conversion kit installed in the van last month.
Since then, he has not had to refill the diesel tank -- only the separate vegetable oil supply -- in nearly 1,600km of New York City driving.
Saving money by using oil as a fuel that had previously been a disposal problem is only part of the reason Selig said he was happy to make the switch.
"It addresses a problem I think the restaurant business has had for a long time," he said.
"We need to be more intelligent about dealing with the waste that we generate. Cost and waste make it hard to survive in this business, and I was motivated to do something about it," he added.
Selig said he had also tried to find gardeners who could use his vegetable waste as compost.
Even a restaurant owner not feeling motivated to run his own car with oil from the deep-fat fryer can turn that waste into a business advantage. Tim Bryant, who runs Marlintini's Grill in Blue Hill, Maine, gives all of his waste oil to Carsten Steenberg from nearby Penobscot. Steenberg uses the oil in his 2006 Volkswagen Jetta diesel.
In return, Steenberg displays large magnetic advertising signs on the front doors of his car.
"It was a no-brainer," Bryant said. "He drives all over with the name of our restaurant on his car."
Steenberg, a 46-year-old business consultant, said he was aware that by installing a parallel fuel system in a new car he might be jeopardizing at least a portion of the automaker's warranty.
"But I have no reservations," he said. "I had the car converted when it was one week old, and it has 7,300 miles [11,680km] on it, all driven on vegetable oil after the first 1,000 miles [1,600km]. It's scary how perfect the setup has been."
Baruch Ben-Yehudah, who runs Everlasting Life, a health food restaurant in Capitol Heights, Maryland, fills his 1991 Mercedes-Benz with oil that had been used to fry tofu, potatoes and vegetable patties.
"It's not just the money," he said. "I did it because I saw what we were doing to the environment and did not want my children to see their father contributing to the problem."
And he added: "I believe in being energy independent. I do not want to give someone else power over my life."
Sustainable consumption: We will if you will, say consumers
Ethical Corporation
July 23, 2006
SIDE NOTE: A must read for every level of government in the US.
Consumers and business both want government to do more to make it easier for them to be green, says a recent report
Published in the early part of 2006, a new report – “I will if you will, Towards Sustainable Consumption” – has analysed a series of focus groups with citizens and business and looked at the history of how green products are produced and sold.
Alan Knight, co-chair of the UK’s Sustainable Consumption Roundtable, a joint research venture between the National Consumer Council and the UK’s Sustainable Development Commission, offered his interpretation of its findings at a recent Ethical Corporation conference.
Overall, Knight told the conference, consumers said it was not easy enough to live a sustainable lifestyle, and feel they need help to do so. Meanwhile business told the researchers that “we’ll do more if it’s easier”.
This “brings up the need for legislation” to support such activities, said Knight. The report’s researchers have come up with suggestions for government.
Make more noise about it
Consumers and business want more information on what the report authors call “the space for change”. Essentially, said Knight, they commented that the context, case and need for sustainable consumption was not being made clearly enough.
This is best summarised as if those surveyed were saying “if it’s that bad ... we do not understand why our governments are not doing more to drive change”.
The report researchers found that consumers and business wanted it to be made easier to live and act in a sustainable manner.
In the UK, homes, transport, food and holidays account for some 80% of environmental impacts. The suggestion? For policy makers to focus on pragmatism rather than processes or systems and to simply “build policy around product”.
The report concludes that governments cannot simply put the burden of sustainable buying practices on green consumers, but must get involved in offering what Knight called “product roadmaps” with regard to sustainability.
Knight cited the development and success of the Forest Stewardship Council as an example of success.
“[Government] Interventions do make a huge difference” when it comes to sustainable products, said Knight, pointing to another example of where government action has tweaked a market to improve sustainability – energy labels on EU white goods.
This mandated labelling of European items such as washing machines and dishwashers as A to E grade on energy use allowed consumers and retailers to drive demand for environmentally friendly goods.
Talk about the big picture
Another of the report’s findings was the importance of demonstrating to consumers the bigger environmental picture, and how they can individually make a difference.
An example of this would be persuading consumers to offset their carbon emissions when buying an airline ticket but making customers actively opt out of offsetting their emissions rather than opting in.
Other ways of showing consumers the bigger environmental and energy picture includes encouraging the use of micro power generation in new build homes, Knight said.
This is something that is being done by London’s maverick leftist mayor, Ken Livingstone, in some new build projects around London, one of which is being promoted with Greenpeace.
In terms of moving from corporate social responsibility towards sustainable development Knight was forthright in his calls for both a paradigm shift in business and less focus on process and more on issues around the sustainability agenda.
Knight predicts a major future focus on “product stories” based around sustainable products and lifecycles, with an increased societal focus on life satisfaction, well-being and happiness, echoing UK Conservative leader David Cameron’s recent public comments on the subject.
In conclusion, said Knight, the primary role of business and government on sustainability issues is to “make it a lot easier for consumers than it currently is”, to be green through smart market inventions. It’s a shame no-one from government bothers to attend such conferences.
Useful links:
www.ncc.org.uk
www.sd-commission.org.uk
July 23, 2006
SIDE NOTE: A must read for every level of government in the US.
Consumers and business both want government to do more to make it easier for them to be green, says a recent report
Published in the early part of 2006, a new report – “I will if you will, Towards Sustainable Consumption” – has analysed a series of focus groups with citizens and business and looked at the history of how green products are produced and sold.
Alan Knight, co-chair of the UK’s Sustainable Consumption Roundtable, a joint research venture between the National Consumer Council and the UK’s Sustainable Development Commission, offered his interpretation of its findings at a recent Ethical Corporation conference.
Overall, Knight told the conference, consumers said it was not easy enough to live a sustainable lifestyle, and feel they need help to do so. Meanwhile business told the researchers that “we’ll do more if it’s easier”.
This “brings up the need for legislation” to support such activities, said Knight. The report’s researchers have come up with suggestions for government.
Make more noise about it
Consumers and business want more information on what the report authors call “the space for change”. Essentially, said Knight, they commented that the context, case and need for sustainable consumption was not being made clearly enough.
This is best summarised as if those surveyed were saying “if it’s that bad ... we do not understand why our governments are not doing more to drive change”.
The report researchers found that consumers and business wanted it to be made easier to live and act in a sustainable manner.
In the UK, homes, transport, food and holidays account for some 80% of environmental impacts. The suggestion? For policy makers to focus on pragmatism rather than processes or systems and to simply “build policy around product”.
The report concludes that governments cannot simply put the burden of sustainable buying practices on green consumers, but must get involved in offering what Knight called “product roadmaps” with regard to sustainability.
Knight cited the development and success of the Forest Stewardship Council as an example of success.
“[Government] Interventions do make a huge difference” when it comes to sustainable products, said Knight, pointing to another example of where government action has tweaked a market to improve sustainability – energy labels on EU white goods.
This mandated labelling of European items such as washing machines and dishwashers as A to E grade on energy use allowed consumers and retailers to drive demand for environmentally friendly goods.
Talk about the big picture
Another of the report’s findings was the importance of demonstrating to consumers the bigger environmental picture, and how they can individually make a difference.
An example of this would be persuading consumers to offset their carbon emissions when buying an airline ticket but making customers actively opt out of offsetting their emissions rather than opting in.
Other ways of showing consumers the bigger environmental and energy picture includes encouraging the use of micro power generation in new build homes, Knight said.
This is something that is being done by London’s maverick leftist mayor, Ken Livingstone, in some new build projects around London, one of which is being promoted with Greenpeace.
In terms of moving from corporate social responsibility towards sustainable development Knight was forthright in his calls for both a paradigm shift in business and less focus on process and more on issues around the sustainability agenda.
Knight predicts a major future focus on “product stories” based around sustainable products and lifecycles, with an increased societal focus on life satisfaction, well-being and happiness, echoing UK Conservative leader David Cameron’s recent public comments on the subject.
In conclusion, said Knight, the primary role of business and government on sustainability issues is to “make it a lot easier for consumers than it currently is”, to be green through smart market inventions. It’s a shame no-one from government bothers to attend such conferences.
Useful links:
www.ncc.org.uk
www.sd-commission.org.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
