Cleantech and renewable energy professionals now have a new legal resource at their disposal. Professionals looking for help on legal or policy issues can submit their environmental, clean tech, and renewable energy legal questions to CleanTechies’ Legal Q&A at http://law.cleantechies.com and get answers from cleantech law experts.

CleanTechies has joined forces with Cleantech Law Partners, a boutique law firm that caters to the unique legal needs of renewable energy and cleantech companies. The firm’s attorneys review the legal questions that are submitted on CleanTechies and provide their answers online.

Users can provide additional feedback by commenting on the discussion and sharing their own experiences and insights on cleantech and renewable energy law.

To submit your questions about environmental, clean tech or renewable energy law, follow this link.

As new technologies develop and awareness about climate change evolves, cleantech and renewable energy laws, policies, and regulations play an increasingly important role in the United States. This service will provide a much needed resource to help cleantech and renewable energy professionals navigate the rapidly changing legislative environment.

“The Legal Q&A on CleanTechies helps close a significant gap in the online knowledge base by allowing renewable energy project developers, startup companies, service providers, and other professionals to ask our attorneys about legal and policy issues they encounter on a daily basis. We hope this resource will contribute to the overall growth of the sector,” said Jack Jacobs, founder and managing partner of Cleantech Law Partners, a boutique law firm that caters to the unique legal needs of renewable energy and cleantech companies.

The new online legal forum is built on strong foundations: It combines CleanTechies’ powerful Internet presence and reach of tens of thousands of cleantech professionals every month with Cleantech Law Partners’ legal expertise and industry-specific cleantech insights.

“We are excited to team up with Cleantech Law Partners to provide cleantech professionals with another valuable resource on our website,” said Ceylan Thomson, CEO & Co-Founder of CleanTechies, a leading network and knowledge hub that provides cleantech professionals with insights, resources, and opportunities. “Our goal is to provide better access to expert knowledge and facilitate understanding of important issues by offering cleantech professionals a platform to share their insights. The Legal Q&A will contribute to this goal by shedding light on important legal and policy issues.”

Visit the Cleantech Legal Q&A, and post your questions on clean technology and renewable energy law.

Related posts:

• Top 6 Tips for Clean Tech Events and Renewable Energy Conferences
• China is World Leader In Clean-Tech Investments, Report Says
• Clean Tech LiveChat with Richard Kauffman this Thursday
• Will Washington’s Clean Tech Spending Spree Pay Off?
• Reader Feedback: The Biggest Clean Tech Story?

With so much volatility in the price of oil over the last decade, who can blame the airline industry for “going big” these past couple months and placing bets on emerging renewable jet fuel companies?

The list of deals is long: AltAir signing an MOU with 14 airlines to supply camelina-based fuel, BioJet and Great Plains working together to develop their own green fuel derived from camelina, Kingfisher Airlines working with three companies on R&D for renewable jet fuel, and Qatar Airways leading a consortium to investigate potential biofuels, just to name a few.

Despite what the reports may indicate, renewable jet fuel is not about reducing emissions — the carbon regime is not sufficiently developed or binding at this point to drive investment — but about the emerging inevitability of higher fuel costs.

According to the Air Transport Authority (ATA), the industry trade organization for the leading U.S. airlines, fuel expenses have historically ranged from 10 to 15 percent of U.S. passenger airline operating costs, but averaged more than 35 percent in the third quarter of 2008.

Projections from the International Energy Agency suggest that oil prices will remain high in the near term. According to the IEA, $40 oil is still high and capacity constraints, geopolitical uncertainty, and demand growth will not disappear overnight and will continue to provide price support in the next few quarters.  Long term is anyone’s guess, but the oil market’s growing volatility is driving demand for alternative sources of fuel.

The graph below, taken from this article, shows a dramatic increase in oil price volatility:

Within this context, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) blasted governments and oil companies for failing to invest in the development of aviation biofuels.  This article from Flight International notes:

Both IATA and Airbus are calling for government authorities to support the aviation industry’s efforts to gain priority access to biofuel, arguing that the industry does not have other energy options because, unlike the automotive industry, it cannot use electricity, while hydrogen would not be economically viable even if it were technically achievable.

IATA’s criticism touches on a difficult question: in the face of growing fuel price uncertainty and volatility, are biofuel products best invested in auto transport or aviation?

As demonstrated by recent movements in the “crack spread” of jet fuel, which is the difference between crude oil and jet fuel prices, acute supply shortages tip the balance in favor of auto transport.  This was demonstrated in the weeks following hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, when major oil supply disruptions prompted refiners to focus their operations on producing gasoline.

With aviation accounting for only 12 percent of transportation fuel demand, the auto transportation sector will maintain a distinct market advantage over aviation.  But with Renewable Fuel Standard mandates already difficult to meet, it is unlikely that the aviation industry will receive much federal support.

As such, the aviation industry may be fighting this battle on their own.  The hope, of course, is that scalable biofuel technologies will make this decision moot.

Mackinnon Lawrence is an attorney, principal consultant with Biomass Advisors, and editor & publisher of Biomass Intel.

[photo credit: wvs]

Related posts:

• Aviation Biofuels Industry Materializing in Brazil
• Aviation Industry Hangs Its Future on Biofuels
• With Aviation Biofuel Deals on the Rise, Camelina in the Spotlight
• Algae Biofuel Industry Seeks Tax Incentive
• Scaling Biofuels for Aviation ‘Not so difficult,’ Branson Says

It’s that time of year again … no, not when turduckens appear on dinner tables nationwide and it becomes somehow acceptable to call the marshmallow a vegetable. It’s time for the 2009 edition of “Freeing the Grid,” an annual report card to states on their net metering and interconnection standards. Together, these two key policies empower energy customers (that’s you) to go solar and reduce your utility bills.

Although there is still plenty of room for improvement, this year’s report shows solid progress across most states—an indicator that these once-obscure policies are becoming accepted best practices. Oregon was this year’s star pupil. Meanwhile, there were still a number of states that didn’t even show up to class. Want to see if your state made the grade? Download 2009’s Freeing the Grid here from the report’s lead author, Network for New Energy Choices.

They may sound wonky, but net metering and interconnection standards are the backbone of a strong rooftop solar market.

Interconnection standards are the technical requirements and legal procedures that allow a customer-sited generator to “plug-into” the electricity grid. This interconnection process should be governed by a transparent, non-arbitrary set of provisions that facilitate rather than hinder connection to the grid. Customers of all sizes and types should be able to connect to the grid without any excessive hassle or cost. You may be shocked to learn that utilities can and do find ways to prevent customers from connecting their shiny new solar energy systems to the grid unless state policy offers those protections. Well, it’s true.

Net metering is a simple billing arrangement that allows solar customers to get fair credit for the excess electricity their systems generate during daytime hours. Imagine if you have a system on your home but you’re at work when the sun is shining – or at a school that’s closed during the summer months. Even though the lights aren’t on, those systems are still reliably cranking out clean, reliable electricity that the local utility is delivering to others in the community. Net metering allows system owners to bank that power and save it for a rainy day (perhaps literally) when they need it. Under best practices, 1 kWh generated by the customer has the exact same value as 1 kWh consumed by the customer. Furthermore, states should not place arbitrary limits on the system size or the total number of customers that are allowed to participate.

Folks we talk to are generally surprised to learn that these kinds of limits would exist at all. But they most certainly do. Here in California there is a cap on the program once total customer-owned solar installed in any utility territory reaches 2.5% of the overall load. Once that limit is reached, new solar customers no longer get the benefits of net metering. Solar’s proven so popular in Northern California that we’re on track to hit that cap as early as next year. With leadership from Governor Schwarzenegger, PG&E has opted to voluntarily raise the program cap to 3.5% to give the growing solar market some run time. You can bet we’ll be working to officially raise that cap even higher when the state legislature starts up again in early 2010. New York is another example of well-intentioned net metering program gone awry. In this case, the law is being interpreted in a way that prevents most commercial energy systems from participating. Not only does that impede the state’s growing solar market (and all those green jobs we hear so much about), but we think it’s downright unfair to energy customers who want to generate their own electricity.

We’re working hard to make these policy changes state by state, but it’s incredibly helpful to have folks like NNEC, IREC and DSIRE give state leaders tools for getting it right. This stuff is complex, it’s new to many, and it can be tricky to get right. Freeing the Grid provides an effective roadmap for navigating that great unknown and getting straight to effective policies that are going to build local solar markets.

And states are busy proving that with the right guidelines and committed policymakers those changes can be made quickly and effectively. Utah for example moved from a lacklust “F” in net metering to a stellar “A” grade in just two years. In total, Freeing the Grid 2009 reports 27 states with good (A or B) grades in net metering standards, up from 13 in 2007. Eight states (Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas) still do not have statewide net metering programs. On the interconnection side, 15 states now claim A or B grades, a whopping improvement over the one state to receive a B in 2007.

Now that’s something to be thankful for.

Related posts:

• 2010 Freeing the Grid: Which States Made the Grade?
• How Efficiency Makes Solar Affordable
• Energy Efficiency and PV: Together Forever
• Time to Export Energy Efficiency?
• GE Asks: Can You Make Our Power Grid Smarter? | Sponsored Post

Long a ubiquitous part of modern life, plastics are now in everything from diapers to water bottles to cell phones. But given the proven health threats of some plastics — as well as the enormous environmental costs — the time has come for the U.S. to pass a comprehensive plastics control law.

creatingpowerfulhealth.com/blog

Plastic water bottles made with the carbonate plastic Bisphenol-A (BPA) on display at a California outdoor supply store.

Since 1950, plastics have quickly and quietly entered the lives and bodies of most people and ecosystems on the planet. In the United States alone, more than 100 billion pounds of resins are formed each year into food and beverage packaging, electronics, building products, furnishings, vehicles, toys, and medical devices. In 2007, the average American purchased more than 220 pounds of plastic, creating nearly $400 billion in sales.

It is now impossible to avoid exposure to plastics. They surround and pervade our homes, bodies, foods, and water supplies, from the plastic diapers and polyester pajamas worn by our children to the cars we drive and the frying pans in which we cook our food.

The ubiquitous nature of plastics is a significant factor in an unexpected side effect of 20th century prosperity — a change in the chemistry of the human body. Today, most individuals carry in their bodies a mixture of metals, pesticides, solvents, fire retardants, waterproofing agents, and by-products of fuel combustion, according to studies of human tissues conducted across the U.S. by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children often carry higher concentrations than adults, with the amounts also varying according to gender and ethnicity. Many of these substances are recognized by the governments of the United States and the European Union to be carcinogens, neurotoxins, reproductive and developmental toxins, or endocrine disruptors that mimic or block human hormones.

Significantly, these chemicals were once thought to be safe at doses now known to be hazardous; as with other substances, the perception of danger grew as governments tested chemicals more thoroughly. Such is the case with Bisphenol-A (BPA), the primary component of hard and clear polycarbonate plastics, which people are exposed to daily through water bottles, baby bottles, and the linings of canned foods.

Given the proven health threat posed by some plastics, the scattershot and weak regulation of the plastics industry, and the enormous environmental costs of plastics — the plastics industry accounts for 5 percent of the nation’s consumption of petroleum and natural gas, and more than 1 trillion pounds of plastic wastes now sit in U.S. garbage dumps — the time has come to pass a comprehensive national plastics control law.

Nearly all chemicals in commerce have been poorly tested to determine their effects
on human health.

One might assume the United States already has such a law. Indeed, Congress adopted the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 1976 intending to manage chemicals such as those polymers used to form plastics. Yet TSCA was and is fundamentally flawed for several reasons that have long been obvious. Nearly 80,000 chemicals are now traded in global markets, and Congress exempted nearly 60,000 of them from TSCA testing requirements. Among 20,000 new compounds introduced since the law’s passage, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued permits for all except five, but has required intensive reviews for only 200. This means that nearly all chemicals in commerce have been poorly tested to determine their environmental behavior or effects on human health. The statute’s ineffectiveness has been recognized for decades, yet Congress, the EPA, and manufacturers all share blame for the failure to do anything about it.

In contrast, the European Union in 2007 adopted a new directive known as “REACH” that requires the testing of both older and newly introduced chemicals. Importantly the new regulations create a burden on manufacturers to prove safety; under TSCA the burden rests on EPA to prove danger, and the agency has never taken up the challenge. Unless the U.S. chooses to adopt similar restrictions, U.S. chemical manufacturers will face barriers to their untested exports intended for European markets. Thus the chemical industry itself recognizes the need to harmonize U.S. and EU chemical safety law.

The most promising proposal for reform in the U.S. is the “Kid-Safe Chemical Act,” a bill first introduced in 2008 that would require industry to show that chemicals are safe for children before they are added to consumer products. Such a law is needed because there is little doubt that the growing burden of synthetic chemicals has been accompanied by an increase in the prevalence of many illnesses during the past half-century. These include respiratory diseases (such as childhood asthma), neurological impairments, declining sperm counts, fertility failure, immune dysfunction, breast and prostate cancers, and developmental disorders among the young. Some of these illnesses are now known to be caused or exacerbated by exposure to commercial chemicals and pollutants.

Few people realize how pervasive plastics have become. Most homes constructed since 1985 are wrapped in plastic film such as Tyvek, and many exterior shells are made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) siding. Some modern buildings receive water and transport wastes via PVC pipes. Wooden floors are coated with polyurethane finishes and polyvinyl chloride tiles.

Foods and beverages are normally packaged in plastic, including milk bottles made from high-density polyethylene. Most families have at least one “non-stick” pan, often made from Teflon, a soft polymer that can scratch and hitchhike on foods to the dinner table. Between 1997 and 2005, annual sales of small bottles of water — those holding less than one liter — increased from 4 billion to nearly 30 billion bottles.

Ingredients of plastics need not be labeled, and most manufacturers are unwilling to disclose them or their sources.

The billions of video games, computers, MP3 players, cameras, and cell phones purchased each year in the United States use a wide variety of plastic resins. And the almost 7.5 million new vehicles sold in the United States each year contain 2.5 billion pounds of plastic components, which have little hope of being recycled, especially if made from polyvinyl chloride or polycarbonate.

The chemical contents of plastics have always been a mystery to consumers. Under federal law, ingredients need not be labeled, and most manufacturers are unwilling or unable to disclose these contents or their sources. Indeed, often the only clue consumers have to the chemical identity of the plastics they use is the voluntary resin code designed to identify products that should and should not be recycled — but it offers little usable information.

The true costs of plastics — including the energy required to manufacture them, the environmental contamination caused by their disposal, their health impacts, and the recycling and eventual disposal costs — are not reflected in product prices. The American Plastics Council now estimates that only about 5 percent of all plastics manufactured are recycled; 95 billion pounds are discarded on average yearly. Adding to the environmental toll, most plastic is produced from natural gas and petroleum products, exacerbating global warming.

Plastics and Human Health

The controversy over BPA — the primary component of hard and clear plastics — and its potential role in human hormone disruption provides the most recent example of the need for a national plastics control law.

Normal growth and development among fetuses, infants, children, and adolescents is regulated in the body by a diverse set of hormones that promote or inhibit cell division. More than a thousand chemicals are now suspected of affecting normal human hormonal activity. These include many pharmaceuticals, pesticides, plasticizers, solvents, metals, and flame retardants.

Scientists’ growing interest in hormone disruption coincided with a consensus within the National Academy of Sciences that children are often at greater risk of health effects than adults because of their rapidly growing but immature organ systems, hormone pathways, and metabolic systems. And many forms of human illness associated with abnormal hormonal activity have become more commonplace during the past several decades, including infertility, breast and prostate cancer, and various neurological problems.

BPA illustrates well the endocrine disruption problem. Each year several billion pounds of BPA are produced in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found, in results consistent with those found in other countries, that 95 percent of human urine samples tested have measurable BPA levels. BPA has also been detected in human serum, breast milk, and maternal and fetal plasma. BPA travels easily across the placenta, and levels in many pregnant women and their fetuses were similar to those found in animal studies to be toxic to the reproductive organs of the animals’ male and female offspring.

Government scientists believe that the primary source of human BPA exposure is foods, especially those that are canned, as BPA-based epoxy resins can migrate from the resins into the foods. In 1997, the FDA found that BPA migrated from polycarbonate water containers — such as the five-gallon water jugs found in offices — into water at room temperature and that concentrations increased over time. Another study reported that boiling water in polycarbonate bottles increased the rate of migration by up to 55-fold, suggesting that it would be wise to avoid filling polycarbonate baby bottles with boiling water to make infant formula from powders.

Scientists have reported BPA detected in nonstick-coated cookware, PVC stretch film used for food packaging, recycled paperboard food boxes, and clothing treated with fire retardants.

Since 1995 numerous scientists have reported that BPA caused health effects in animals that were similar to diseases becoming more prevalent in humans, abnormal penile or urethra development in males, obesity and type 2 diabetes, and immune system disorders. BPA can bind with estrogen receptors in cell membranes following part-per-trillion doses — exposures nearly 1,000 times lower than the EPA’s recommended acceptable limit.

In 2007, the National Institutes of Health convened a panel of 38 scientists to review the state of research on BPA-induced health effects. The panel, selected for its independence from the plastics industry, issued a strong warning about the chemical’s hazards:

“There is chronic, low level exposure of virtually everyone in developed countries to BPA… The wide range of adverse effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals exposed both during development and in adulthood is a great cause for concern with regard to the potential for similar adverse effects in humans.”

The American Chemistry Council, which advocates for the plastics industry, has criticized most scientific research that has reported an

Competing narratives have delayed government action to protect the health of citizens.

association between BPA and adverse health effects. The council’s complaints have included claims that sample sizes are too small, that animals are poor models for understanding hazards to humans, that doses administered in animal studies are normally far higher than those experienced by humans, that the mechanism of chemical action is poorly understood, and that health effects among those exposed are not necessarily “adverse.”

Research on plastics, however, now comprises a large and robust literature reporting adverse health effects in laboratory animals and wildlife at even low doses. Claims of associations between BPA and hormonal activity in humans are strengthened by consensus that everyone is routinely exposed and by the rising incidence of many human diseases similar to those induced in animals dosed with the chemical. Two competing narratives — one forwarded by independent scientists and the other promoted by industry representatives — have delayed government action to protect the health of citizens through bans or restrictions.

Action Needed

How has the plastics industry escaped serious regulation by the federal government, especially since other federally regulated sectors that create environmental or health risks such as pharmaceuticals, pesticides, motor vehicles, and tobacco have their own statutes? In the case of plastics, Congress instead has been content with limited federal regulatory responsibility, now fractured among at least four agencies: the EPA, the Food and Drug Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. None of these agencies have demanded pre-market testing of plastic ingredients, none have required ingredient labeling or warnings on plastic products, and none have limited production, environmental release, or human exposure. As a result, the entire U.S. population continues to be exposed to hormonally active chemicals from plastics without their knowledge or consent.

What should be done? The Kids Safe Chemical Act represents a comprehensive solution that would apply to all commercial chemicals including plastic ingredients. Yet the nation’s chemical companies, with their enormous political power, are not likely to agree to assume the testing costs, nor are they likely to accept a health protective standard. Rather than pass another weak statute, Congress should consider a stronger alternative.

The nation needs a comprehensive plastics control law, just as we have national laws to control firms that produce other risky products, such as pesticides. Key elements of a national plastics policy should include tough government regulations that demand pre-market testing and prohibit chemicals that do not quickly degrade into harmless compounds. Exempting previously permitted ingredients from this evaluation makes little sense, as older chemicals have often been proven more dangerous than newer ones.

Plastics ingredients found to pose a significant threat to the environment or human health should be quickly phased out of production. Congress chose this approach to manage pesticide hazards, and it has proven to be reasonably effective since the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act in 1996. Federal redemption fees for products containing plastics should be set at levels tied to chemical persistence, toxicity, and production volume. These fees should be high enough that consumers have a strong incentive to recycle.

In order to make responsible choices in the marketplace, consumers also need to be educated about the content and effects of the resins, so we need mandatory labeling of plastic ingredients. The chemical industry itself needs to replace persistent and hazardous chemicals with those that are proven to be safe. Finally, manufacturers should take responsibility for cleaning up environmental contamination from the more than one trillion pounds of plastic wastes they have produced over the past 50 years.

John Wargo is professor of environmental policy, risk analysis, and political science at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, chairs the Environmental Studies Major at Yale College, and is an advisor to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

Related posts:

• Plastic Pollution in Water Supplies to Be Investigated
• EPA Dishes Dirt on Toxic Chemicals for Free
• Where Have the Plastic Bags Gone?
• Albatrosses Eat Plastic! – Plastic Diet Day 12
• Mobile Phones Go Eco-Friendly

Did you know that America’s largest installed solar power plant is located on Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada? The 14-megawatt solar array (shown at left) went live in late 2007 and remains the largest solar power plant in the United States.

While First Solar’s recent announcement of two 250-megawatt solar power plants in California dwarfs the military’s solar array, the fact remains that for a considerable amount of time the military will have operated the largest solar array in the United States. Why would the military take this step? The answer is energy security.

In late September, the National Defense University (NDU) hosted an energy security conference on its campus in Washington, D.C., located at Fort McNair and under the operation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At the conference, one recurring theme was the importance of distributed energy for military operations such as the solar array at Nellis Air Force Base. This includes operations on bases worldwide and deployed forces actively engaged in conflict.

The future of the military presents a considerable opportunity to push innovation in energy development and deployment. When it comes to ingenuity, discipline, and dedication, it is hard to find a more effective body than the U.S. military.

As one speaker at the conference put it, “When it comes to the military, you undertake your actions in order to save lives.” That incentive easily trumps the mighty dollar. The U.S. military could prove to be the perfect proving ground for distributed generation applications including support for a smart grid. At the conference, most suggested initiating projects at permanent bases in order to prove concepts in a more controlled environment.

The leaders in the national defense arena have acknowledged the threat of climate change and they understand the vulnerability that exists with traditional energy sources. CNA Analysis & Solutions, an expert on national defense, recently released a report on energy and the risks to national security.

Furthermore, the next Quadrennial Defense Review will incorporate the risk of climate change in determining the future threats for national security. As the military and research institutions that focus on national defense begin to develop and implement policy changes related to energy use, it will be critical that the following factors are at the core of the strategy:

1. Security and Reliability: Reliable access to energy is pivotal for national defense. This means distributed power for bases both overseas and in the United States to reduce the dependence on commercial utilities and large-scale liquid fuel transport convoys for mission critical applications.
2. Cost Effectiveness: While you cannot put a price on the safety of soldiers, the budget is not a bottomless well. In this context, the right incentives could encourage savings on energy. One example would be allowing a percentage of the savings to go directly to other programs at the discretion of the group that implemented the energy saving policy.
3. Climate Change: The military is the nation’s single largest energy consumer (0.8% in 2006). The military understands the threat to national security from climate threat; it should act in all possible ways to mitigate that danger.

In the 1960s, the Department of Defense developed a system for use in case of a nuclear attack; this system required groundbreaking ingenuity and became the foundation of today’s Internet. In a similar fashion, energy security is a new opportunity to unlock the innovation in the military.

[photo credit: Nellis Air Force Base]

Related posts:

• U.S. Military Must End Oil Dependence Within 30 Years, Report Says
• Efficiency Beyond Pizza Money: The Military’s Gigantic Bite
• Energy for the War Fighter: The Department of Defense Operational Energy Strategy
• The Case for National Security: Clean Energy
• New Fuel Cell Reforming Technologies for the U.S. Military

The world stands to gain 6.9 million jobs by 2030 in the clean energy sector if a strong deal is reached in Copenhagen, according to a report released recently by Greenpeace International and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC).

A switch from coal to renewable electricity generation will not just avoid 10 billion tons of CO2 emissions, but will create 2.7 million more jobs by 2030 than if we continue business as usual. Conversely, the global coal industry — which currently supports about 4.7 million employees worldwide — is likely to contract by more than 1.4 million jobs by 2030, due to rationalization measures in existing coal mines.

“Global leaders can tackle the twin crises of global economic recession and climate change head on by investing in renewable energy,” said Damon Moglen, Greenpeace USA global arming campaign director. “For each job lost in the coal industry our green energy scenario, known as the Energy [R]evolution, creates three new jobs in the renewable power industry. We can choose green jobs and growth or unemployment, ecological and social collapse.”

Greenpeace’s latest research provides a model for cutting emissions while achieving economic growth, illustrates how the transition to clean energy will provide more jobs by 2030 in the power sector than would be available if it stays on the current carbon-intensive path. However, leaders and governments must act on this information as soon as possible to provide necessary jobs and retraining.

“Now is the time to put in place a ‘just transition’ to sustainably transform the jobs of today and develop the decent and green jobs of tomorrow,” added Guy Ryder, General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). “The union movement, as well as the authors of this report, believe ambitious climate action by world leaders can and must be a driver for sustainable economic growth and social progress.”

The report: “Working for the Climate: Renewable Energy & The Green Job [R]evolution” (PDF) is based on Greenpeace’s Energy [R]evolution and research from the Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) at the University of Technology Sydney.

The report shows that by 2030, 6.9 million people could work for the renewable power industry, and another 1.1 million jobs would be created due to higher efficiency in electrical applications.

“There are already 450,000 people working in the renewable energy industry in Europe, representing a turnover of more than EUR 40 billion. This research proves that renewable energy is key to tackling both the climate and economic crises,” said Christine Lins, Secretary General of the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC).

The report was developed in conjunction with specialists from the Institute of Technical Thermodynamics at the German Aerospace Centre (DLR), the Dutch Institute Ecofys and more than 40 scientists and engineers from universities, institutes and the renewable energy industry around the world.

Greenpeace undertook this new study to determine whether there would be jobs created by this nine-fold increase in renewable energy, and massive global energy efficiency measures required for the Energy [R]evolution by researching jobs in power generation and electrical efficiency (excluding heating, cooling and transport). Efficiency to improve building insulation is not included in this number and would be additional.

Article appearing courtesy of Green Economy Post.

[photo credit: Flickr]

Related posts:

• Who Needs a Climate Treaty? Focus on Green Energy for the Poor
• Carbon Footprint: Climate Treaty Should Target The World’s Rich
• Alternative Energy Investments Will Soar to $200 Billion Worldwide in 2010
• Coal and the Road to Copenhagen: Win $10k for Clean Energy Project
• The Next Step for Fighting Climate Change in the Northwest

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360.

The European Union will unveil a proposal this week calling for $73 billion (50 billion euros) in research over the next decade into improving wind, solar, and nuclear power technologies, as well as the development of carbon capture and sequestration projects and energy-efficient “Smart Cities.”

The report, prepared by the European Union’s executive body, the European Commission, says the surge in investment is necessary if Europe hopes to meet its goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

The plan, which calls for coordinated research on a continental level, proposes $23.4 billion in solar power research, $8.8 billion in wind power research, $10.2 billion in nuclear power research, $13 billion for developing energy from biomass and waste, and $19 billion in carbon sequestration technology.

European Union officials said the proposed research program will enable Europe to remain competitive with the U.S., China, and Japan in the race to develop alternative sources of energy.

Related posts:

• Renewable Energy Use in Europe Continues to Grow Rapidly
• Air Pollution Costs Billions to the European Union
• European Union Biodiesel Production Slumps in 2011
• Many European Nations Have Carbon Vehicle Tax, Promote Electric Cars
• European Union to Meet 20 Percent Renewables Goal

As media sponsor of the 5th Germany California Solar Day that took place in San Francisco last month, CleanTechies is pleased to announce another exciting green tech event organized by the German American Chamber of Commerce:

Mobility 2030: Transportation Technologies & Lifestyles of the Future

Organized by the German American Chamber of Commerce (GACC), alongside Volkswagen Group of America, Mobility 2030: Transportation Technologies & Lifestyles of the Future will examine the future of transportation, as it focuses on policy, energy, technology, mobility and society demands for the year 2030. Ever wonder what will happen in the next 20 years in regards to transportation? Will we be charging vehicles like cellular phones? How advanced will technologies be by 2030? Will we be on track with lowering greenhouse gas emissions? Listen and learn as expert speakers discuss these and other questions and what life in the U.S. may be by 2030. Best of all, this event is free.

What: Mobility 2030 – Transportation Technologies & Lifestyles of the Future

When: Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Where: Mission Bay Conference Center, Fisher Banquet Room, 1675 Owens Street, San Francisco, CA

Note: For more information, click here

The second event that we would like to recommend is part of the Clean Tech Thought Leader Series, a public program at the Harvard Club of San Francisco:

Harvard Club of San Francisco’s Ground, Water & Ice

Join the Harvard Club of San Francisco and Dennis Murphy, President of GroundSource Geo and recent winner of The Clean Tech Open, as he directs a panel of energy innovators aimed at new solutions to providing heating, cooling and hot water. Murphy will present a crash course on ground source heat pumps (GSHP), how ice storage and water gridding can greatly reduce energy demand throughout the built environment, as well as various uses of thermal transfer of energy including how ice rinks can heat your home. He will also present findings from his California Energy Commission study, Project Negatherm.

Attendance costs $15 for members of HCSF, Stanford SF, Ivy Plus, HBSA/NC and Columbia (members can also bring a guest for the cost of the member price), while non-members will pay $25, including dinner.

What: Ground, Ice & Water – How Dennis Murphy & Leading Bay Area Innovators are “Groundsourcing” the Carbon Problem

When: Thursday, August 6, 2009

Where: University Club, 800 Powell Street, San Francisco, CA

Note: To register, click here

Save the date:  The Harvard Club will host another event on Tuesday, September 1, 2009 at Adobe’s LEED Platinum headquarters in San Jose with a panel featuring Dan Adler (California Clean Energy Fund), Rex Northen (Clean Tech Open), and Melinda Richter (Environmental Business Cluster), moderated by Jonathan Livingston of Livingston Energy Innovations.

If you are interested in a media sponsorship with CleanTechies, please contact us.

For other clean tech events, visit the CleanTechies Event Calendar.

Related posts:

• Coming Attractions: CleanTechies Events Highlights
• Green Media Panel: Practical & Legal Considerations for Communicating Your Message
• Top 6 Tips for Clean Tech Events and Renewable Energy Conferences
• J-REC Conference: Jewish Clean Tech & Green Energy Leaders To Meet
• Event: Explore Sustainable Innovation in Sweden and California

“A toast to the end of the Bush Era…” That was the first sentence of an amazing presentation held by Sir Nicholas Stern in São Paulo at the Federation of the Industries of the State of São Paulo (FIESP) on Tuesday this week. In less than an hour, Dr. Stern discoursed on his mighty report “The Stern Review”.

Buy this report at
 our bookstore »

Released in 2006 on behalf of the United Kingdom, “The Stern Review” is a 700-page document that stands by the conversion of our economy into a new low-carbon one. In short, the report proposes that the climate changes under a “business-as-usual” scenario will consume about 20% of the worldwide Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with adaptation and mitigation initiatives costing about 1.5% in the same period.

In a very casual yet direct manner, Dr. Stern reaffirmed his opinion for the need of an economical transformation into a low-carbon system. According to him, a high-carbon economy, one based on petrol and non-sustainable processes, must be re-evaluated immediately. He talked about the “Bush Legacy” – high-carbon products without long-term responsibility – and how to replace this outdated model. One of the most controversial of Dr. Stern’s proposals is the pricing of carbon within the products and services. In other words, it would be similar to establishing a “carbon tax” on the system.

According to “The Stern Review”, society needs to cut down its per capita emissions by more than 50%. While a regular European citizen emits 10 tons of CO2 equivalent per year, a responsible citizen should only emit 2-3 tons. This means developed countries must cut their emissions by 80% by 2050, and developing countries must produce 50% less carbon emissions than they do now. In his report Stern argues that a failure to do so will lead to dramatic modifications of the human condition (i.e., geographically, environmentally, and economically). Regarding these threats, Dr. Stern is very emphatic when he says the climate change is disturbing fishing activities, agriculture incomes, energetic planning, and so on. As a consequence, the GDP will most certainly definitely drop.

It is clear to Dr. Stern and his team – as it is to me and others – that our current economic model is not sustainable. However, why don’t decision-makers realize it? Why are some countries, like Brazil, investing millions of dollars in efforts to be “petrol independent” when they should be investing in efforts to be “petrol free” instead?

Is Dr. Stern correct in suggesting a carbon tax? If not a tax what is the best way to avoid the looming economic and environmental disasters that climate change presents?

Related posts:

• Top Environmental Stories of the Decade: A Subjective List and Poll
• U.S. Envoy Warns of ‘Stillborn’ Climate Agreement
• AquAgro Fund Acquires Kinrot Water Incubator
• Oil, Waxman-Markey & Obama’s Advantage on Climate Change
• Electric Vehicles on Display at the Department of Energy