Northern Hemisphere Temperature Highest Ever
Frances C. Moore
With the record for 2007 now complete, it is clear that temperatures around the world are continuing their upward climb. The global average in 2007 was 14.73 degrees Celsius (58.5 degrees Fahrenheit) -- the second warmest year on record, only 0.03 degrees Celsius behind the 2005 maximum. January 2007 was the hottest January ever measured, a full 0.23 degrees Celsius warmer than the previous record. August was also a record for that month, and September was the second warmest September recorded.
Looking at the northern hemisphere alone, 2007 temperatures averaged 15.04 degrees Celsius (59.1 degrees Fahrenheit) -- easily the hottest year in the northern half of the globe since the record began in 1880, and more than a degree warmer than the 195180 average...
For entire text see http://www.earthpolicy.org/Indicators/Temp/2008.htm
For data see http://www.earthpolicy.org/Indicators/Temp/2008_data.htm
For an index of Earth Policy Institute resources related to Temperature and Climate see http://www.earthpolicy.org/Indicators/Temp/index.htm
And for more on the effects of rising temperature and how to stabilize climate, you may be interested in Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization by Lester R. Brown (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008). Information about this book is on-line at http://www.earthpolicy.org/Books/PB3/index.htm.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
Toyota Will Offer a Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle by 2010
NY Times
January 14, 2008
By MICHELINE MAYNARD
The chief executive of the Toyota Motor Corporation said Monday that he is pushing his company’s engineers to develop a plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle with a lithium-ion battery before 2010, raising the stakes in a race with General Motors.
The comments by Katsuaki Watanabe came at a briefing here on the sidelines of the Detroit auto show, which opened to the press on Sunday.
Mr. Watanabe said he welcomed a competition with G.M., which plans to introduce its own lithium-ion hybrid, the Chevrolet Volt, around 2010.
He said the contest would help reduce the “negative aspects” of automobiles, and ultimately help the environment.
“To compete against each other” in such a battle “is something to be congratulated,” Mr. Watanabe said through an interpreter. “We don’t want to be the loser in that competition, of course.”
On Sunday night, Toyota, the world’s largest producer of hybrid-electric vehicles, announced it would produce a plug-in hybrid vehicle equipped with a lithium-ion battery by 2010, for sale first to big commercial customers like corporations and government fleets.
Toyota’s best-selling hybrid, the Prius, runs on nickel-metal hydride batteries. Lithium-ion batteries, like those used to power digital cameras and other small electronic devices, can potentially hold a longer charge than nickel-metal hydride versions, but they are also more expensive.
The Volt is set to run on lithium-ion batteries. Last fall, G.M. announced that it would build the Volt in its assembly plant in Detroit in 2010, although executives have said production might start after that.
On Monday, Mr. Watanabe said he was urging Toyota engineers to have the vehicle ready before that target, even though he acknowledged it would take Toyota “a year or two” to conduct vehicle tests and assess the results.
“Yesterday, I said by 2010 we will introduce plug-ins, but before that is my desire,” Mr. Watanabe said.
Plug-in hybrids differ from the current hybrid vehicles in that they can be recharged externally, from an ordinary power outlet. In a conventional hybrid, the battery is recharged from power generated by its wheels.
Toyota and Panasonic have a joint venture in Japan, called Panasonic Electric Vehicle Energy, that produces batteries for the Prius. Toyota said Sunday that the venture, 60 percent owned by Toyota and 40 percent by Panasonic, would add a separate line at its assembly plant to produce lithium-ion batteries.
Toyota also said Sunday it planned to develop a new hybrid-electric car specifically for its Lexus division as well as another new hybrid for the Toyota brand. It said it would unveil both at the 2009 Detroit show.
Mr. Watanabe said Monday that the new hybrid car would be larger than the current Prius. The Lexus version will be the first hybrid car developed specifically for the luxury division, which offers a hybrid engine as an option on several models, including the RX crossover vehicle and the LS luxury sedan.
Mr. Watanabe also said Toyota planned to offer diesel engines for its Tundra pickup truck and the Sequoia sport utility vehicle “in the near future,” but was not more specific.
Some environmental groups have pushed for plug-in hybrids, called PHEVs, or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, as a way to save on gasoline, thus curbing emissions.
But some experts say plug-ins may not be the ultimate answer to cutting pollution, if the electricity used to charge them comes from coal-fired power plants.
That is also a concern to Toyota, which has asked researchers to determine not only whether consumers would be willing to pay for a plug-in, but also the effect it would have on the environment, James Lentz, the president of Toyota Motor Sales, said in an interview Sunday.
Nonetheless, G.M., Toyota and Ford Motor, the world’s three biggest car companies, all are developing plug-in hybrid vehicles. Along with the Volt, G.M. has said it plans to produce a plug-in version of its Saturn Vue hybrid. Ford has not yet given details of its plug-in hybrid, which it first discussed in 2006.
Indeed, Toyota executives initially questioned the practicality of plug-in hybrids, saying consumers preferred the convenience of hybrids that did not have to be recharged. Toyota has sold more than one million hybrids worldwide, including more than 800,000 Prius cars.
But the automaker announced last July that it was testing plug-in hybrids on public roads in Japan. It also is testing them in France, Toyota officials said Sunday, and it has given prototype versions of plug-in hybrid vehicles to university researchers in California.
Even before those test results are in, however, Toyota has offered plug-in hybrid test drives to journalists in Japan, California and Detroit, where a small fleet bearing the words “Toyota Plug-In Hybrid” traveled city streets on Sunday.
This plug-in hybrid — a version of the Prius, and not the vehicle Toyota announced it would build — differs from the Prius in four ways. It has two nickel-metal hydride batteries under the floor of its trunk, instead the conventional Prius’s single battery.
Unlike the Prius, which has a single fuel-filler door on the left side of the car, the plug-in model has another door on the right hand side that opens to reveal an outlet for the electrical charger. One end of the charger looks like a small fuel nozzle; the other end is a conventional three-pronged plug.
Each charge, which takes about four hours, uses the equivalent of 2.7 kilowatt hours of electricity, said Jaycie Chitwood, a senior strategic planner in Toyota’s advanced technologies group.
Inside the car, there is a button with the letters “EV” inside an outline of a car. If the driver pushes the button, the car reverts to electric vehicle mode, meaning the Prius is powered completely by its two batteries.
In electric mode, the Prius gets 99.9 miles a gallon, according to a gauge on a screen in the middle of the dashboard.
But it cannot go very far: the plug-in hybrid’s two batteries hold enough power for only seven miles, said Saúl Ibarra, a product specialist with Toyota who worked on developing the Prius.
By contrast, G.M. claims that the Volt will be able to hold a charge equal to 40 miles, after a six-hour charge.
Still, the electric mode of the Toyota plug-in is enough to start the car and run it until the engine reaches the point where it needs to tap the gasoline engine. The plug-in Prius can stay in electric mode until 62 miles per hour, versus around 30 miles per hour for the conventional Prius, Mr. Ibarra said.
Despite its decision to step up its plug-in hybrid development, Toyota is not sure how much more consumers will want to pay for it, Mr. Lentz said. The Prius starts at $21,100. Some after-market companies are charging nearly that much to convert Prius models into plug-ins, he said.
Given that, it is more likely that Toyota would offer plug-in technology as an option on the Prius, at least in the short term, rather than switch all of its hybrids to plug-in models.
Ultimately, Toyota must determine “do people want to plug in their car?” Ms. Chitwood said.
January 14, 2008
By MICHELINE MAYNARD
The chief executive of the Toyota Motor Corporation said Monday that he is pushing his company’s engineers to develop a plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle with a lithium-ion battery before 2010, raising the stakes in a race with General Motors.
The comments by Katsuaki Watanabe came at a briefing here on the sidelines of the Detroit auto show, which opened to the press on Sunday.
Mr. Watanabe said he welcomed a competition with G.M., which plans to introduce its own lithium-ion hybrid, the Chevrolet Volt, around 2010.
He said the contest would help reduce the “negative aspects” of automobiles, and ultimately help the environment.
“To compete against each other” in such a battle “is something to be congratulated,” Mr. Watanabe said through an interpreter. “We don’t want to be the loser in that competition, of course.”
On Sunday night, Toyota, the world’s largest producer of hybrid-electric vehicles, announced it would produce a plug-in hybrid vehicle equipped with a lithium-ion battery by 2010, for sale first to big commercial customers like corporations and government fleets.
Toyota’s best-selling hybrid, the Prius, runs on nickel-metal hydride batteries. Lithium-ion batteries, like those used to power digital cameras and other small electronic devices, can potentially hold a longer charge than nickel-metal hydride versions, but they are also more expensive.
The Volt is set to run on lithium-ion batteries. Last fall, G.M. announced that it would build the Volt in its assembly plant in Detroit in 2010, although executives have said production might start after that.
On Monday, Mr. Watanabe said he was urging Toyota engineers to have the vehicle ready before that target, even though he acknowledged it would take Toyota “a year or two” to conduct vehicle tests and assess the results.
“Yesterday, I said by 2010 we will introduce plug-ins, but before that is my desire,” Mr. Watanabe said.
Plug-in hybrids differ from the current hybrid vehicles in that they can be recharged externally, from an ordinary power outlet. In a conventional hybrid, the battery is recharged from power generated by its wheels.
Toyota and Panasonic have a joint venture in Japan, called Panasonic Electric Vehicle Energy, that produces batteries for the Prius. Toyota said Sunday that the venture, 60 percent owned by Toyota and 40 percent by Panasonic, would add a separate line at its assembly plant to produce lithium-ion batteries.
Toyota also said Sunday it planned to develop a new hybrid-electric car specifically for its Lexus division as well as another new hybrid for the Toyota brand. It said it would unveil both at the 2009 Detroit show.
Mr. Watanabe said Monday that the new hybrid car would be larger than the current Prius. The Lexus version will be the first hybrid car developed specifically for the luxury division, which offers a hybrid engine as an option on several models, including the RX crossover vehicle and the LS luxury sedan.
Mr. Watanabe also said Toyota planned to offer diesel engines for its Tundra pickup truck and the Sequoia sport utility vehicle “in the near future,” but was not more specific.
Some environmental groups have pushed for plug-in hybrids, called PHEVs, or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, as a way to save on gasoline, thus curbing emissions.
But some experts say plug-ins may not be the ultimate answer to cutting pollution, if the electricity used to charge them comes from coal-fired power plants.
That is also a concern to Toyota, which has asked researchers to determine not only whether consumers would be willing to pay for a plug-in, but also the effect it would have on the environment, James Lentz, the president of Toyota Motor Sales, said in an interview Sunday.
Nonetheless, G.M., Toyota and Ford Motor, the world’s three biggest car companies, all are developing plug-in hybrid vehicles. Along with the Volt, G.M. has said it plans to produce a plug-in version of its Saturn Vue hybrid. Ford has not yet given details of its plug-in hybrid, which it first discussed in 2006.
Indeed, Toyota executives initially questioned the practicality of plug-in hybrids, saying consumers preferred the convenience of hybrids that did not have to be recharged. Toyota has sold more than one million hybrids worldwide, including more than 800,000 Prius cars.
But the automaker announced last July that it was testing plug-in hybrids on public roads in Japan. It also is testing them in France, Toyota officials said Sunday, and it has given prototype versions of plug-in hybrid vehicles to university researchers in California.
Even before those test results are in, however, Toyota has offered plug-in hybrid test drives to journalists in Japan, California and Detroit, where a small fleet bearing the words “Toyota Plug-In Hybrid” traveled city streets on Sunday.
This plug-in hybrid — a version of the Prius, and not the vehicle Toyota announced it would build — differs from the Prius in four ways. It has two nickel-metal hydride batteries under the floor of its trunk, instead the conventional Prius’s single battery.
Unlike the Prius, which has a single fuel-filler door on the left side of the car, the plug-in model has another door on the right hand side that opens to reveal an outlet for the electrical charger. One end of the charger looks like a small fuel nozzle; the other end is a conventional three-pronged plug.
Each charge, which takes about four hours, uses the equivalent of 2.7 kilowatt hours of electricity, said Jaycie Chitwood, a senior strategic planner in Toyota’s advanced technologies group.
Inside the car, there is a button with the letters “EV” inside an outline of a car. If the driver pushes the button, the car reverts to electric vehicle mode, meaning the Prius is powered completely by its two batteries.
In electric mode, the Prius gets 99.9 miles a gallon, according to a gauge on a screen in the middle of the dashboard.
But it cannot go very far: the plug-in hybrid’s two batteries hold enough power for only seven miles, said Saúl Ibarra, a product specialist with Toyota who worked on developing the Prius.
By contrast, G.M. claims that the Volt will be able to hold a charge equal to 40 miles, after a six-hour charge.
Still, the electric mode of the Toyota plug-in is enough to start the car and run it until the engine reaches the point where it needs to tap the gasoline engine. The plug-in Prius can stay in electric mode until 62 miles per hour, versus around 30 miles per hour for the conventional Prius, Mr. Ibarra said.
Despite its decision to step up its plug-in hybrid development, Toyota is not sure how much more consumers will want to pay for it, Mr. Lentz said. The Prius starts at $21,100. Some after-market companies are charging nearly that much to convert Prius models into plug-ins, he said.
Given that, it is more likely that Toyota would offer plug-in technology as an option on the Prius, at least in the short term, rather than switch all of its hybrids to plug-in models.
Ultimately, Toyota must determine “do people want to plug in their car?” Ms. Chitwood said.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
F.T.C. Asks if Carbon-Offset Money Is Well Spent
NY Times
January 9, 2008
By LOUISE STORY
Corporations and shoppers in the United States spent more than $54 million last year on carbon offset credits toward tree planting, wind farms, solar plants and other projects to balance the emissions created by, say, using a laptop computer or flying on a jet.
But where exactly is that money going?
The Federal Trade Commission, which regulates advertising claims, raised the question Tuesday in its first hearing in a series on green marketing, this one focusing on carbon offsets.
As more companies use offset programs to create an environmental halo over their products, the commission said it was growing increasingly concerned that some green marketing assertions were not substantiated. Environmentalists have a word for such misleading advertising: “greenwashing.”
With the rapid growth of green programs like carbon offsets, “there’s a heightened potential for deception,” said Deborah Platt Majoras, chairwoman of the commission.
The F.T.C. has not updated its environmental advertising guidelines, known as the Green Guides, since 1998. Back then, the agency did not create definitions for phrases that are common now — like renewable energy, carbon offsets and sustainability.
For now, it is soliciting comments on how to update its guidelines and is gathering information about how carbon-offset programs work.
Consumers seem to be confronted with green-sounding offers at every turn. Volkswagen told buyers last year that it would offset their first year of driving by planting in what it called the VW Forest in the lower Mississippi alluvial valley (the price starts at $18).
Dell lets visitors to its site fill their shopping carts with carbon offsets for their printers, computer monitors and even for themselves (the last at a cost of $99 a year).
Continental Airlines lets travelers track the carbon impact of their itineraries.
General Electric and Bank of America will translate credit card rewards points into offsets.
Most suppliers of carbon offsets say that the cost of planting a tree is roughly $5, and the tree must live for at least 100 years to fully compensate for the emissions in question. By comparison, an offset sold by Dell for three years’ use of a notebook computer costs $2.
To supply and manage the carbon offsets, big consumer brands are turning to a growing number of little-known companies, like TerraPass, and nonprofits, like Carbonfund.org. These intermediaries also cater to corporations that want to become “carbon-neutral” by purchasing offsets for the carbon dioxide they release.
Ms. Majoras of the F.T.C. pointed out that spokesmen for events like the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards have recently started saying that their events are carbon-neutral (though the Academy Awards drew criticism for the way its offsets were handled).
The F.T.C. has not accused anyone of wrongdoing — neither the providers of carbon offsets nor the consumer brands that sell them. But environmentalists say — and the F.T.C.’s hearings suggest — that it is only a matter of time until the market faces greater scrutiny from the government or environmental organizations.
“Is there green substance behind the green sparkle?” said Daniel C. Esty, director of the Center for Business and the Environment at Yale University and author of “Green to Gold,” a book about how companies use environmental strategies to their advantage. “The carbon market is a leading example of the challenge of making sure that when people put their money into what they hope will improve their planet, that there is real follow-through.”
Carbon offsets are essentially promises to use money in a way that will reduce carbon emissions. Panelists at the F.T.C.’s session on Tuesday raised a number of questions about certifications behind the claims, wondering if the offset companies might be double-counting carbon reductions that would have happened even without their efforts.
There is even disagreement over how much carbon dioxide can be neutralized by tree-planting, which is the type of offset that is easiest to grasp.
Carbonfund.org, for example, which provides offsets to companies like Amtrak, U-Haul and Allstate, uses the offset money in three ways: to plant trees; to subsidize wind and solar power so that it can be sold at more competitive prices; and to purchase credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange, which barters among hundreds of companies trying to reduce their emissions.
Even the companies that market carbon offsets say they have wondered if the providers were living up to their promises. When Gaiam, a yoga-equipment company, began selling offsets for shipping to consumers through the Conservation Fund, a nonprofit organization, Chris Fischer, the company’s general manager, says he insisted on visiting one of the tree sites in Louisiana.
“Not only did I want to know it existed, I wanted to make sure it was being done the way they said it was being done,” Mr. Fischer said. “It’s not just ‘did they do it?’ — it’s ‘did they do it right?’”
Gaiam has sold more than $200,000 in offset credits in the last two years, Mr. Fischer said.
Other companies have not had immediate success marketing the offsets. Last spring, Delta Air Lines began selling flight offsets — $5.50 for domestic round-trips, and $11 for international ones — but has so far not sold as many as it hoped, said Jena Thompson, director of Go Zero program at the Conservation Fund, which manages Delta’s offsets.
Delta is trying to draw more attention to the program this month by setting up a carbon-offset kiosk at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.
The airline did not consider increasing all ticket prices by the cost of carbon offsets because customers are price-sensitive, a spokeswoman, Betsy Talton, said.
Volkswagen has provided free offsets to everyone who purchased a car in the last five months. The offsets cover a year of driving for a typical driver, a spokesman, Keith Price, said. The company also gave customers the chance to buy offsets for additional years, an option that Mr. Price said had proved most popular in Southern California and the suburbs of Boston.
January 9, 2008
By LOUISE STORY
Corporations and shoppers in the United States spent more than $54 million last year on carbon offset credits toward tree planting, wind farms, solar plants and other projects to balance the emissions created by, say, using a laptop computer or flying on a jet.
But where exactly is that money going?
The Federal Trade Commission, which regulates advertising claims, raised the question Tuesday in its first hearing in a series on green marketing, this one focusing on carbon offsets.
As more companies use offset programs to create an environmental halo over their products, the commission said it was growing increasingly concerned that some green marketing assertions were not substantiated. Environmentalists have a word for such misleading advertising: “greenwashing.”
With the rapid growth of green programs like carbon offsets, “there’s a heightened potential for deception,” said Deborah Platt Majoras, chairwoman of the commission.
The F.T.C. has not updated its environmental advertising guidelines, known as the Green Guides, since 1998. Back then, the agency did not create definitions for phrases that are common now — like renewable energy, carbon offsets and sustainability.
For now, it is soliciting comments on how to update its guidelines and is gathering information about how carbon-offset programs work.
Consumers seem to be confronted with green-sounding offers at every turn. Volkswagen told buyers last year that it would offset their first year of driving by planting in what it called the VW Forest in the lower Mississippi alluvial valley (the price starts at $18).
Dell lets visitors to its site fill their shopping carts with carbon offsets for their printers, computer monitors and even for themselves (the last at a cost of $99 a year).
Continental Airlines lets travelers track the carbon impact of their itineraries.
General Electric and Bank of America will translate credit card rewards points into offsets.
Most suppliers of carbon offsets say that the cost of planting a tree is roughly $5, and the tree must live for at least 100 years to fully compensate for the emissions in question. By comparison, an offset sold by Dell for three years’ use of a notebook computer costs $2.
To supply and manage the carbon offsets, big consumer brands are turning to a growing number of little-known companies, like TerraPass, and nonprofits, like Carbonfund.org. These intermediaries also cater to corporations that want to become “carbon-neutral” by purchasing offsets for the carbon dioxide they release.
Ms. Majoras of the F.T.C. pointed out that spokesmen for events like the Super Bowl and the Academy Awards have recently started saying that their events are carbon-neutral (though the Academy Awards drew criticism for the way its offsets were handled).
The F.T.C. has not accused anyone of wrongdoing — neither the providers of carbon offsets nor the consumer brands that sell them. But environmentalists say — and the F.T.C.’s hearings suggest — that it is only a matter of time until the market faces greater scrutiny from the government or environmental organizations.
“Is there green substance behind the green sparkle?” said Daniel C. Esty, director of the Center for Business and the Environment at Yale University and author of “Green to Gold,” a book about how companies use environmental strategies to their advantage. “The carbon market is a leading example of the challenge of making sure that when people put their money into what they hope will improve their planet, that there is real follow-through.”
Carbon offsets are essentially promises to use money in a way that will reduce carbon emissions. Panelists at the F.T.C.’s session on Tuesday raised a number of questions about certifications behind the claims, wondering if the offset companies might be double-counting carbon reductions that would have happened even without their efforts.
There is even disagreement over how much carbon dioxide can be neutralized by tree-planting, which is the type of offset that is easiest to grasp.
Carbonfund.org, for example, which provides offsets to companies like Amtrak, U-Haul and Allstate, uses the offset money in three ways: to plant trees; to subsidize wind and solar power so that it can be sold at more competitive prices; and to purchase credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange, which barters among hundreds of companies trying to reduce their emissions.
Even the companies that market carbon offsets say they have wondered if the providers were living up to their promises. When Gaiam, a yoga-equipment company, began selling offsets for shipping to consumers through the Conservation Fund, a nonprofit organization, Chris Fischer, the company’s general manager, says he insisted on visiting one of the tree sites in Louisiana.
“Not only did I want to know it existed, I wanted to make sure it was being done the way they said it was being done,” Mr. Fischer said. “It’s not just ‘did they do it?’ — it’s ‘did they do it right?’”
Gaiam has sold more than $200,000 in offset credits in the last two years, Mr. Fischer said.
Other companies have not had immediate success marketing the offsets. Last spring, Delta Air Lines began selling flight offsets — $5.50 for domestic round-trips, and $11 for international ones — but has so far not sold as many as it hoped, said Jena Thompson, director of Go Zero program at the Conservation Fund, which manages Delta’s offsets.
Delta is trying to draw more attention to the program this month by setting up a carbon-offset kiosk at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.
The airline did not consider increasing all ticket prices by the cost of carbon offsets because customers are price-sensitive, a spokeswoman, Betsy Talton, said.
Volkswagen has provided free offsets to everyone who purchased a car in the last five months. The offsets cover a year of driving for a typical driver, a spokesman, Keith Price, said. The company also gave customers the chance to buy offsets for additional years, an option that Mr. Price said had proved most popular in Southern California and the suburbs of Boston.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Maine can be alternative energy leader
Portland Press Herald
Maine Voices
However, a focus on developing options that aren't based on fossil fuels will require an investment.
Richard W. (Rick) Smith
January 8, 2008
Take a moment to consider the facts, and you'll find a close
connection between oil price increases and the return of real
manufacturing jobs to Maine.
We have 2 trillion barrels of so-called "proven" reserves using
the most optimistic and "reasonable," but inherently suspect,
estimates. With consumption at 40 million barrels per day, about
double the present, but rapidly increasing, rate of consumption,
that's 50,000 days worth of oil -- or 136 years.
But, it is more likely that the rest of the world will start
consuming at the U.S. rate. China and India together have about
10 times the U.S. population.
That means those 2 trillion barrels will be used at a rate of 200
million barrels a day. That's 10,000 days -- or just 27 years.
Whether it's 136 years or 27, the perception is that higher prices
signal "the end" of our economic well-being, as predicted in a
film released in November called "A Crude Awakening: The Oil
Crash." We should realize that higher prices can bring a boom to
Maine not a disaster, because the money will flow to new places.
Today, our energy cash goes to sheiks and speculators.
Tomorrow that same money, not "new" money, will go to
workers on the assembly lines of shale oil extracting equipment,
coal gasifiers, biomass harvesters and processors, solar arrays,
wind machines, tidal turbines, fuel cells, biological and chemical
fuel production facilities, and a wide array of machinery for
homes and businesses designed to use these new energy
sources efficiently.
Those manufacturing workers need not all be in Dubai, Saudi
Arabia, Venezuela, or for that matter India, China, Japan or even
Canada. The next industrial revolution will be well-distributed,
but not to Maine unless we bring it here.
Many Washington County residents hoped for a job in a casino.
Those hopes have been dashed, but perhaps can be replaced
with jobs manufacturing the equipment to harness, store,
distribute and use power from that county's substantial wind
and tidal resources.
The Legislature has adopted greenhouse gas reduction goals,
and encouraged businesses to measure and reduce their carbon
footprint.
The governor and Legislature created offices, committees and
task forces on wind, renewable hydrogen, future prosperity,
energy security, renewable electricity portfolio standards,
biomass fuels and complementary technologies and ideas.
But there is as yet no coordination and there is no money to put
these ideas to work.
Massachusetts now cites the clean-energy sector as its 10th
largest industry group and is taking steps toward making it the
third-largest industry sector in the Commonwealth.
Gov. Deval Patrick has combined his energy and environmental
departments into a single executive office that includes public
utilities, recognizing the connection between a clean
environment, energy, public utilities and job growth.
Minnesota has allocated $4.6 million over five years to map out
a renewable energy fuel plan for hydrogen alone. Multiyear,
multimillion-dollar programs in New York, California, Florida
and other states are producing new industries, new incentives,
new research and new jobs in clean energy.
Maine has taken many excellent "first steps" in these areas. It is
time fund these renewable energy planning and program efforts
with $10 million over the next five years, and assure that a
single office is responsible for coordinating the effort to assure
success.
Success means industrial jobs for Maine for the next half century
and beyond, as we replace foreign crude oil with energy and
energy equipment that's made in Maine.
— Special to the Press Herald
Copyright © 2008 Blethen Maine Newspapers
Maine Voices
However, a focus on developing options that aren't based on fossil fuels will require an investment.
Richard W. (Rick) Smith
January 8, 2008
Take a moment to consider the facts, and you'll find a close
connection between oil price increases and the return of real
manufacturing jobs to Maine.
We have 2 trillion barrels of so-called "proven" reserves using
the most optimistic and "reasonable," but inherently suspect,
estimates. With consumption at 40 million barrels per day, about
double the present, but rapidly increasing, rate of consumption,
that's 50,000 days worth of oil -- or 136 years.
But, it is more likely that the rest of the world will start
consuming at the U.S. rate. China and India together have about
10 times the U.S. population.
That means those 2 trillion barrels will be used at a rate of 200
million barrels a day. That's 10,000 days -- or just 27 years.
Whether it's 136 years or 27, the perception is that higher prices
signal "the end" of our economic well-being, as predicted in a
film released in November called "A Crude Awakening: The Oil
Crash." We should realize that higher prices can bring a boom to
Maine not a disaster, because the money will flow to new places.
Today, our energy cash goes to sheiks and speculators.
Tomorrow that same money, not "new" money, will go to
workers on the assembly lines of shale oil extracting equipment,
coal gasifiers, biomass harvesters and processors, solar arrays,
wind machines, tidal turbines, fuel cells, biological and chemical
fuel production facilities, and a wide array of machinery for
homes and businesses designed to use these new energy
sources efficiently.
Those manufacturing workers need not all be in Dubai, Saudi
Arabia, Venezuela, or for that matter India, China, Japan or even
Canada. The next industrial revolution will be well-distributed,
but not to Maine unless we bring it here.
Many Washington County residents hoped for a job in a casino.
Those hopes have been dashed, but perhaps can be replaced
with jobs manufacturing the equipment to harness, store,
distribute and use power from that county's substantial wind
and tidal resources.
The Legislature has adopted greenhouse gas reduction goals,
and encouraged businesses to measure and reduce their carbon
footprint.
The governor and Legislature created offices, committees and
task forces on wind, renewable hydrogen, future prosperity,
energy security, renewable electricity portfolio standards,
biomass fuels and complementary technologies and ideas.
But there is as yet no coordination and there is no money to put
these ideas to work.
Massachusetts now cites the clean-energy sector as its 10th
largest industry group and is taking steps toward making it the
third-largest industry sector in the Commonwealth.
Gov. Deval Patrick has combined his energy and environmental
departments into a single executive office that includes public
utilities, recognizing the connection between a clean
environment, energy, public utilities and job growth.
Minnesota has allocated $4.6 million over five years to map out
a renewable energy fuel plan for hydrogen alone. Multiyear,
multimillion-dollar programs in New York, California, Florida
and other states are producing new industries, new incentives,
new research and new jobs in clean energy.
Maine has taken many excellent "first steps" in these areas. It is
time fund these renewable energy planning and program efforts
with $10 million over the next five years, and assure that a
single office is responsible for coordinating the effort to assure
success.
Success means industrial jobs for Maine for the next half century
and beyond, as we replace foreign crude oil with energy and
energy equipment that's made in Maine.
— Special to the Press Herald
Copyright © 2008 Blethen Maine Newspapers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
