Three days ago, President Barack Obama began his three day visit to India where the leaders of both countries planned a series of talks that would greatly impact the futures of both nations. With that three day visit now complete, President Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh can safely walk away from the table and say that they have accomplished a fair bit of diplomatic work while the two dignitaries were meeting. Among the many agreements that were made, the United States vowed to throw in its lot with India’s renewable energy goals.

Due to India’s massive need for energy and their desire to continue expanding their power infrastructure to parts of the country that go without, renewable energy has quickly gained popularity in the country. So far, India has invested massive quantities of money and time into solar energy in order to reach their goal of generating around twenty gigawatts of solar energy by 2020.  The country has been actively working towards their goal with the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission that is attempting to create 1,100 megawatts of solar energy by 2013. Wind power also has become a significant part of the country’s renewable energy policy with nearly two percent of the nation’s established power coming from that source.

In an effort to aid India is reaching their renewable energy goals while also investing in the development of renewable energy technology, President Barack Obama has agreed to invest $5 million dollars annually over the course of five years into Indian renewable energy. The investment will also be matched by companies in the private sector making a total investment $50 million dollars by the five years end. The money is going to be going towards establishing a research center where Indian and American minds will investigate new ways to harness solar energy, distill and create second generation biofuels from varying sources, and to increase building efficiency in a country with such a large population. The decision to create the research center is the primary part of a ten year agreement signed by the two countries and includes the five year investment plan.

The portion of the agreement that focuses less on direct renewable energy sources and more on the efficiency of various systems is also expected to be a part of the ten year plan. In the agreement that was signed by Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia and the United States Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, both nations will be working together to create an efficient means of linking renewable energy into power grids, increasing transportation efficiency, as well as investigating the uses of unconventional fuel sources such as shale gas.

Hopefully, the agreement between India and the United States will end up generating some seriously exciting renewable energy technology. Considering the fact that both nations have a fair amount of responsibility in trying to discover ways to replace aging and inefficient power grids, only good will hopefully come of it.

Article by Richard Cooke, appearing courtesy Justmeans.

Related posts:

• India and U.S. to Cooperate on Clean Energy, Shale Gas
• In 2010, Developing Countries Lead the Way on Wind
• New Report Asks US and India to Take Solar Energy Into Space
• New Map of CO2 Emissions Shows Rapid Growth in China and India
• India’s CO2 Emissions Will At Least Triple in the Next 20 Years

(Reuters) – India and the United States have agreed to cooperate on energy projects, including shale gas and clean energy, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and U.S. President Barack Obama told a press conference on Monday.

The two countries will set up a research and development center for clean energy in India and will provide annual funding of $5 million each for five years, with matching investment from the private sector, they said in a joint statement.

“We agreed to deepen our co-operation in pursuit of clean energy technologies, including the creation of a new clean energy research center here in India, and continuing our joint research into solar, biofuels, shale gas and building efficiency,” Obama said.

The statement said initial priority areas for the research center would be “solar energy, second-generation biofuels and building efficiency.” The agreement initially runs for 10 years.

India, which has one of the world’s lowest power consumption rates per capita, has set a power generation target of 62,000 megawatts by March 2012. It now has around 165 gigawatts of installed generation capacity.

Around two-thirds of the country’s electricity is generated from thermal power now, using coal, gas and liquid fuel.

India is looking at alternative sources of energy to plug gaps in its supply and demand for electricity which lead to frequent power cuts.

Nuclear and hydro electricity generation account for less than a quarter of India’s total output currently.

Its crude oil needs are met largely through imports, with make up around four-fifths, as near double-digit economic growth gobbles up energy. So far, its own oil exploration has provided insufficient flows.

The agreement on shale gas calls for the United States to carry out studies on resources and for cooperation on identifying areas with shale gas potential. Indian personnel will be trained in assessing resources.

Article by Jo Winterbottom, edited by Tony Munroe, Malini Menon and Clarence Fernandez; appearing courtesy Reuters.

Related posts:

• India and the United States Make Renewable Energy a Priority
• Emissions from Shale Gas Exceed Those from Coal, Study Says
• Hydrofracturing for Gas Also Releases Uranium from Shale, Study Says
• France First country to Ban Fracking, New Jersey First US State
• New Report Asks US and India to Take Solar Energy Into Space

Sunny Milpitas, California is the newly announced home of SunPower’s first domestic manufacturing operations. Yep, you heard right. More green manufacturing jobs right here in the U.S.A. (In November, Chinese solar powerhouse Suntech announced that its first U.S. manufacturing facility would be located near Phoenix, Arizona).

SunPower’s  75-megawatt production line is expected to employ 100 by the end of the year, and spread the wealth around even more by sourcing equipment and materials from a host of other states throughout the United States. At the Vote Solar Initiative, we like to remind folks that manufacturing is only a fraction of solar’s overall job creation opportunity. In fact, about 75 percent of solar employment is related to system installation, jobs that are inherently local in the first place. Nevertheless, manufacturing is near and dear to most Americans, and this new production facility is tangible proof that the green economy has a real role to play in bringing those jobs back home — with the right policies, that is.

As was the case with Suntech’s Arizona selection, SunPower’s decision to locate manufacturing in California is a testament to the state’s market-building solar policies. And so it is appropriate that stalwart renewable energy supporter, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, joined in making the announcement. During the event, Schwarzenegger highlighted a few initiatives that have been so instrumental to the state’s new energy economy that we think they bear repeating:

* California Solar Initiative. Dubbed “Million Solar Roofs” by the Governator’s own office, this rebate program helps energy consumers go solar. Cleverly designed to build a self-sustaining solar market, the program is comprised of incentives that decline as progress is made toward 3 gigawatts of installed solar. And it’s working. Big time. Last month the CSI program hit yet another record growth milestone with more than 50 megawatts of rebates reserved. That’s about the same capacity as a typical peaking power plant that utilities use to meet high mid-day demand. That, my friends, is solar going mainstream.

Governor Schwarzenegger and SunPower CEO Tom Werner celebrate green job creation in California.

Anyone following our California campaign over the last couple years knows that the CSI program is in fact so successful that we were on track to hit a cap on a related policy called net metering. Net metering allows CSI participants to “bank” excess electricity generation and save it for a rainy day (perhaps literally) when they’re consuming more than they’re producing. California law capped net metering participation at 2.5 percent of utilities’ peak load. The CSI program alone takes customer-sited solar to roughly 5 percent. That’s a problem. With strong support from the Governor and champions in the state legislature, in March the state passed a new law that doubled the amount of solar that utilities are required to net meter. With the higher cap now in place, California solar customers can rest assured knowing that they’ll receive fair credit for their clean energy investment.

* Renewable Portfolio Standard. Designed to get more clean electrons flowing to all of California’s energy consumers, the RPS requires the state’s major utilities to get 20 percent percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020. That’s an impressive target. One that’s going to take all kinds of renewable energy development. And fast. So we’re working on programs that support deployment of large-scale, mid-sized and distributed rooftop solar generation alike to help bring new renewables online at the scale demanded by the RPS. And if that’s not aggressive enough for you, at the SunPower event Schwarzenegger assured the audience he’d be taking another run at raising that RPS target to 33 percent this year.

* AB 32. This is California’s first-in-the-nation greenhouse gas law – not a renewable energy policy per se, but an important model for carbon regulation that has helped redefine the national energy debate. It’s now under threat thanks to a nefarious measure on the November ballot. AB 32 defender Schwarzenegger made a point of calling out the “greedy Texas oil men” funding the ballot initiative, and asked voters to stand firm in support of this leading piece of climate legislation.

California’s comprehensive policy framework has spurred the diverse, fast-growing solar market that we see today. Through these programs and favorable tax-policies for manufacturing equipment, the state has sent a clear signal to the global industry that California is in it for the long-haul – and companies like SunPower are reciprocating by setting up shop close to this hot-spot of solar demand.

In the case of this new Milpitas facility, we can thank the Federal Government for its commitment to solar as well. In 2007, the Department of Energy’s Solar America Initiative awarded SunPower a R&D matching grant to develop the next-generation equipment that will make up the new manufacturing line. Yesterday DOE Solar Energy Technologies program manager John Lushetsky was on hand to see his office’s public-private partnership turn R&D vision into commercial reality.

And how did the Governor respond to an invitation to revisit the space when that new manufacturing line is up and running?

You guessed it.

He’ll be back . . .

photos: manning999, Kimberly Brooke Photography

Related posts:

• Now Is Not the Time to Wave the White Flag on Clean Energy Jobs
• Gehrlicher Solar America Expands to Massachusetts
• German Solar Company Enters U.S. Market
• First Solar Awarded for Project That Creates Green Jobs, Clean Energy
• Wind Energy Investment in America’s Heartland

On December 17^th 2009 the Sapsan (Russian for Peregrine Falcon) high-speed train made its maiden voyage from Moscow to St. Petersburg in 3 hours and 45 minutes.

Nothing has ground America’s collective gears worse than losing to the “Ruskies” for the majority of the past century, so this development could provide the spark needed to ratchet up speed rail development in the United States as a matter of national pride.

When Sputnik slung Yuri Gagarin into orbit, the United States launched into the space race with the Apollo missions.  America prides itself on its tech capabilities, which makes it even more puzzling why the high speed rail resistance has held out for so long and why we are behind the Russians in this regard.

The Sapsan is the latest and greatest of Russian rail, and adds to the heritage the zheleznya doroga (meaning railway, or  literally “iron road”).

One of the most impressive feats of its day was the Trans-Siberian Railway that linked Russia’s European and Asian parts. Approved by Tsar Alexander the Second in 1889, the project was a record expenditure meant to unify a large country with a little in the way of rail (a large country with no rail, sounds awfully familiar). With a blistering speed of 15 mph, the Russian Empire could move populations to its mainly empty eastern frontier, along with troops and munitions to establish itself as an Asian power as well as a European one.

The Japanese severely dented those ambitions with a resounding victory in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5.  Nevertheless, the eastern regions became more developed thanks to the rail link with European Russia, and Vladivostok (literally meaning “Ruler of the East”) became one of Russia’s major cities.

For those who have never been to that part of the world, one becomes overwhelmed by the vastness of Russia and Central Asia.  Flat steppe extends as far as the eye can see in any direction, well over the horizon line. In the wintertime it is a virtual white out, a blank slate of snow and ice that goes on for hundreds of kilometers. The Sapsan and the high-speed rail lines that will follow have the potential to do something that could bring a great benefit to the Russian Federation: shrink it.

Getting around the former Soviet Union is a time-consuming experience, so most people do not travel far unless they absolutely must. Were travel times to be cut, a much more mobile society would emerge and the citizens of the world’s biggest country would want to get out and see more of their own land. More travel options would lower prices, giving more of an incentive to go a bit further a field for vacation than the dacha homes.

There is a big social dividend in the shrinking of a country. It obviously brings people together. There is so much to explore in Russia for both its own citizens and foreigners, and the prospect of fluid Western European style transportation is very exciting indeed. Now, to get rid of those visa requirements…

photo: Inside Russia

Related posts:

• Russia and the World Looks Towards High Speed Rail
• Florida Will Build Nation’s First High-Speed Rail Corridor
• Study Evaluates Markets for High-Speed Rail Systems in the U.S.
• New Chinese Rail Line Said to be Fastest High-Speed Train
• Job Creator & Travelers’ Dream: High Speed Rail Chicago Hub

Wind energy could provide 20 percent of the electricity for the eastern half of the United States by 2024, but only if the nation makes a significant financial investment, according to new government report.

About $90 billion would be required to install a network of land- and sea-based wind turbines and about 22,000 miles of new power lines, according to the study published by U.S. Energy Department’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

The report said that the government would have to provide a significant portion of that investment through programs such as loan guarantees.

“We can bring more wind power online, but if we don’t have the proper infrastructure to move that power around, it’s like buying a hybrid car and leaving it in the garage,” said David Corbus, project manager for the study.

To reach the 20 percent goal, wind power in the eastern U.S. would have to expand 10-fold from current production. Most new wind projects should be located in federal waters from Massachusetts to North Carolina, and across the Midwestern states, the report said.

The Obama administration has earmarked billions of dollars for renewable energy projects, and recently stepped in to accelerate the permitting process of a long-disputed offshore wind proposal in Massachusetts that would provide electricity for 400,000 homes.

Read the study overview

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

photo: kevbo1983

Related posts:

• Iberdrola Powers 50% of Hungary’s Wind Market
• U.S. Wind Energy Capacity Grew 39 Percent in 2009, Report Says
• Wind Generated More than 10 Percent of Energy in 4 U.S. States in 2009
• Brazil to Invest $5.5 Billion in Renewable Energy Sources by 2013
• GE Lands Big Brazilian Wind Turbine Contracts

Citing the “chaotic” Copenhagen climate talks, Jonathan Pershing, the U.S.’s deputy special envoy for climate change, said the UN must relinquish the central role in future climate negotiations to major nations such as the U.S., China, and India.

Pershing, who participated in the Copenhagen talks, said in a speech in Washington that it was virtually impossible to conduct a serious negotiation with 192 nations present in Copenhagen and called for giving more power in future climate talks to the world’s major CO2 emitters.

Given how poorly the UN ran the Copenhagen summit, Pershing also said “I am not sure that any of us are particularly confident” that the UN should manage a $30 billion fund to help poor countries adapt to climate change.

Pershing’s comments signal a possible realignment in the UN-dominated framework for climate change negotiations that has prevailed for two decades.

Meanwhile, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa have announced that they will meet in New Delhi Jan. 24 in advance of a Jan. 31 deadline for nations to set emissions reduction targets. The four nations are expected to forge a common position on emissions reductions and on climate aid for developing nations.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

photo: Oxan@

Related posts:

• New Cache of Emails Leaked In Advance of Durban Climate Talks
• Jeremy Rifkin on Climate Change and Alternative Energy
• Breakthrough at UN Climate Talks? China Moves on Verification, Binding Commitments
• Bolivia Assails Rich, Carbon Market at Cancun Talks
• Developing Nations Say Japan Blocks Climate Talks

The United States Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward in regulating greenhouse gas emission in the US from both mobile sources (principally autos and trucks) and stationary sources (industrial and power generation sources). The actions taken today support EPA in regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

[Yesterday], the US EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) — in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

• Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action is a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Safety Administration on September 15, 2009.

Background

On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.

In making these decisions, the Administrator is required to follow the language of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for rulemaking under section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.

On April 17, 2009, the Administrator signed proposed endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. EPA held a 60-day public comment period, which ended June 23, 2009, and received over 380,000 public comments. These included both written comments as well as testimony at two public hearings in Arlington, Virginia and Seattle, Washington. EPA carefully reviewed, considered, and incorporated public comments and has now issued these final

Findings

The key effects that support EPA’s determination that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the welfare of current and future generations include:

Sea Level Rise

• The global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and continues to rise.

• The most serious potential adverse effects are the increased risk of storm surge and flooding in coastal areas from sea level rise and more intense storms. Observed sea level rise is already increasing the risk of storm surge and flooding in some coastal areas.

• The U.S. East Coast and Gulf Coast are particularly vulnerable to sea level rise because the land is relatively low with respect to mean sea level and also is sinking in many places.

Water and Implications for Water Use

• Rising temperatures will decrease the size of snow packs in the western United States, affecting seasonal water supplies, relied on by humans and wildlife .

• Climate change will likely put more pressure on already stressed water resources in some areas of the United States.

Agriculture and Forestry

• There is a potential for a net benefit in the near term for certain crops, but there is significant uncertainty about whether this benefit will last given the potential adverse impacts of climate change on crop yield, such as the increasing risk of extreme  weather events. Other aspects of this sector may be adversely affected by climate change, including livestock management and irrigation requirements, and there is a risk of adverse effect on a large segment of the total crop market.

• Climate change has very likely already increased the size and number of wildfires, insect outbreaks, and tree mortality in the interior West, the Southwest, and Alaska, and will continue to do so.

Energy and Infrastructure

• Climate change is likely to affect U.S. energy use (e.g., heating and cooling requirements), energy production (e.g., effects on hydropower), physical infrastructures, and institutional infrastructures.

Ecosystems

• Changes in climate will cause some species to shift north and to higher elevations, which may fundamentally rearrange U.S. ecosystems, and in combination with other stresses such as development, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, could have negative consequences on biodiversity and the benefits that healthy ecosystems provide to humans and the environment.

• Climate change effects outside of the United States may exacerbate problems that raise humanitarian, trade, and national security issues for the Unite.

For more information, visit the EPA.

Article appearing courtesy of ENN

Related posts:

• Americans Want Government to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• EPA Implements New Climate Change Regulations
• EPA Aims to Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Details of Boxer-Kerry Draft Cap-and-Trade Bill
• Will the U.S. Climate Bill Make it Through the Senate?

Twelve years ago in Kyoto, the world was poised to act on a climate treaty but looked for a clear signal from the United States. Now, with the Copenhagen talks set to begin, the outcome once again hinges on what the U.S. is prepared to do.

President Obama took much of the drama out of the Copenhagen talks earlier this month when he and other world leaders announced that there’d be no treaty at the end — in essence, they said, we’ll wait for the U.S. Senate. Still, you can’t call off the party entirely, and so the planet’s climate scientists, bureaucrats, activists, skeptics and journalists will still descend on the Danish capital in a few days for a fortnight of meeting, marching, propounding, denying, and most of all spinning.

Almost all of what happens will be murky (and not just because Copenhagen in December averages 45 minutes of sunlight daily). Without the focus provided by the need to draw up a real document, much of the tension may go out of the proceedings — minus a deadline it’s hard to push to resolution on anything. And yet it’s the fate of the world being discussed: as British negotiator Ed Miliband put it, “Bretton Woods plus Yalta multiplied by Reykjavik.” We’ll see some kind of paper signed, but it won’t commit anyone to much of anything — the talks will lurch forward into next year. Most of what occurs in Denmark will be shadow boxing, feeling each other out.

And so here are a few of the places that bear watching, to see if some kind of consensus develops over the course of the proceedings:

• What’s the science really saying? For almost five years, the consensus position of those who cared about producing a treaty has been that we’re struggling to avoid a temperature rise greater than two degrees, and that to do that we’ll need to limit atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to less than 450 parts per million. These sound like the kind of eye-glazing numbers that journalists try to avoid — but the vast and slow-moving bureaucracy of the climate negotiations process has adopted them as the goal, and most of the proposals on the table are geared to reaching (or plausibly approaching) those targets.
• The problem is, that’s not good science any more. After the rapid melt of Arctic sea ice in the summer of 2007, researchers recalibrated. A NASA team said that the right figure is 350 — that anything more is not compatible with “the planet on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” That assertion has been backed up by no less than Rajendra Pachauri, the UN’s chief scientist, who has gotten grief for saying — most recently in an interview with Yale Environment 360 — that 350 is where we need to go. Ninety-two of the poorest nations on Earth have officially signed on to that target, and at the moment it’s still in the negotiating text, albeit in a preamble about a “shared vision” for the future.

  The problem, of course, is that meeting a 350 target goes far beyond anything the Obama administration, much less the Senate, or the Chinese, or many of the other big players, are currently contemplating. We now know that Obama will arrive on Dec. 9 en route to Oslo, and that he will offer roughly a 17 percent cut in 2005 emissions levels by 2020. That would be about a zero percent cut from 1990 levels; in other words, not very ambitious — the absolute minimum for saving face, but not enough to save the world.

  Poor nations are starting to realize how badly they’re going to be hit by climate change.

  Going further would be fundamentally disruptive — it would mean not incremental change but a wartime footing. So the question of which science you embrace is really a proxy for how much you’re willing to do. And in this case “political realists” are the opposite of “scientific realists.” If you’re figuring the odds, there will more politicians than scientists on hand in Copenhagen.

• How tough will the developing countries be? Since Obama’s announcement that he will go to Copenhagen robbed journalists of their first cliffhanger, the next is likely to be whether the most vulnerable nations walk out on the proceedings. Here’s Mohammed Nasheed, president of the Maldives, whose country sets aside money in its budget each year in case it needs to buy a new homeland when its current one sinks beneath the waves, talking about what a 2 degree Celsius temperature increase would mean: “At two degrees we would lose the coral reefs. At 2 degrees we would melt Greenland. At 2 degrees my country would not survive.” He called the proposals from the big players a “suicide pact” and pledged to try and stop them. “As a president I cannot accept this. As a person I cannot accept this. I refuse to believe that it is too late, and that we cannot do anything about it.”

  Nasheed rallied a dozen of the most vulnerable nations earlier this month at a summit in his capital of Male. And virtually every poor nation is starting to realize how badly they’re going to be hit by climate change: The vulnerability of Andean glaciers, Asian monsoons, African rainfall patterns become clearer with each passing year. But the pressure from the rich nations — and indeed from some of the big environmental groups — not to be a skunk at the garden party will be intense. And it will come with sums of money attached — the kind of money that traditionally has been enough to buy off the anger of the poor world.

  The idea of the U.S. meeting anything like its moral obligation seems small.

• Which leads to the next obvious question — just how much money will be on the table? The sums required are staggering. The World Bank recently estimated that keeping temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius would mean spending $140 to $675 billion a year in the developing countries — which, after all, will only be developing if they keep figuring out how to acquire more energy. And adaptation — dealing with the effects of the climate change we can’t prevent — would run another $75 billion a year (an estimate that other research paints as extremely optimistic).

  Sums like that are not on offer. The Europeans have talked about a deal in the range of $100 billion a year, but that depends on the Americans ponying up, and so far the U.S. has been as coy about its willingness to pay as about its willingness to rein in emissions. Everyone outside the U.S. knows that this is — overwhelmingly — a problem we’ve caused; since the carbon molecule has a residence time of over a century in the atmosphere, it will be the decades before the Chinese, despite their vastly larger numbers, are as responsible for climate change as Americans. But if Obama puts a realistic number on the table, Senator James Inhofe (R-Armageddon) will be on hand to take it off. (Inhofe originally announced he was going to Denmark as a “one-man truth squad,” but then added John Barasso (R-WY) and “a secret person” to his delegation). In our poisonous politics, the idea of the U.S. meeting anything like its moral obligation seems small — and without that, the politics gets harder for everyone else in the world.

And then there are the plumbing questions. How do you monitor and then enforce any agreement? How do you draw something up that doesn’t require treaty approval by the U.S. Senate (no one thinks there are 67 votes for a real climate policy)? How do you give credit for actions already taken? How do you keep carbon trading from turning into one more Wall Street boondoggle?

One thing will surely be tested: whether civil society is capable of really pushing the process. Activists will be descending from all directions, but the deck is stacked against them: The conference center, where the media will be mostly cooped up, is miles from town. And the environmentalists themselves are deeply split. There are groups that, for all intents and purposes, are part of the negotiations — whose experts have spent careers working on one part of the treaty or another, and are deeply invested in its success. There are less formal groups — many of them veterans of the anti-globalization movement — determined to shut down the whole process. They won’t succeed, but it’s completely conceivable that tear gas will drift across the Radhuspladsen before the month is out. And there are thousands of young people, about to be disillusioned by their first exposure to big time power politics.

Having been to Kyoto (which at least took place in the daylight) there’s a sense of overwhelming déjà vu as I head toward Denmark. There, too, most of the world was lined up to do something, but waiting on a signal from the U.S., whose negotiators had been doing its best to weaken the treaty in hopes it might pass Senate muster. There was the same will-he-come anxiety, then centered on Al Gore, who flew in at the last minute to offer some small concessions and let the conference proceed. In those days China hadn’t yet emerged as a huge carbon source. In those days the Arctic hadn’t yet melted. But in those days, as in this one, everyone was waiting on the U.S.

Author Bill McKibben is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College. His The End of Nature, published in 1989, is regarded as the first book for a general audience on global warming. He is a founder of 350.org, a campaign to spread the goal of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million worldwide. His most recent book is American Earth, an anthology of American environmental writing.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

[photo: indrasensi]

Related posts:

• Global CO2 Emissions Rose by Nearly 2 Percent in 2008
• Snap Analysis: Climate Talks Win Lifeline, But May Sink in 2012
• Developing Nations Say Japan Blocks Climate Talks
• Breakthrough at UN Climate Talks? China Moves on Verification, Binding Commitments
• Copenhagen Climate Talks: US Energy Secretary Chu Urges Realistic Goals

The first stop on the international showcase of high speed rail that I am writing for CleanTechies, will be in Germany. As much as I try to avoid writing in first-person narrative, this topic is quite close to my heart as Germany (where I lived for most of 2002-2003) is where my eyes were opened to how great public transportation can be and how it’s presence or absence severely affects quality of life.

The calamitous state of transportation in the US became apparent when I returned to my old Pennsylvanian home. Being thrust back into the car-dependent nightmare is still the source of much of my angst to this day.

Deutsch: Durch Erfahrung wird man klug.
English: Through experience man becomes clever.

It is my highest possible recommendation to go to Deutschland and zip around on their stellar 300 km/hour ICE (InterCity Express) trains. Take in the sights while enjoying a cold Franziskaner and dream of the day when you can travel with such ease in the good old US of A (be sure to save up beforehand because our dollar is pretty worthless over there). Amenities abound with roomy reclining seats, air-conditioning, wi-fi access, a full bistro and a television if you want to spring for first class. Long distance ICE trains can move you about the country at great speeds and seamlessly connect you to the transportation networks of cities. For example, the ICE feeds into Berlin’s ultramodern main train station and can get a traveler to anywhere in the capital via subway (U-Bahn), elevated train (S-Bahn) or by bus. Lehrter Bahnhof is a model of integrated transport.

Why do Germans get to have cool stuff like these sleek trains and other useful knick-knacks like health care and free higher education while millions of Americans do not have access to public transportation, go uninsured and face a mountain of debt if they chose to get a higher education? It boils down to one word: Solidarity

Solidarity is a German core value whereas in America the concept does not exist. This is not a matter of opinion. It is an obvious fact when you compare any number of aspects of German and American society when it comes to the rich and the rest. Public transportation is simply the most obvious case, but many other very important societal issues follow the same path.

The previous paragraph is where conservatives of the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh crowd (which number in the millions) gets irate when it is pointed out that their ethos is not to care about anyone else but themselves. You hate freedom if you think it is sensible to tax the über-wealthy to build infrastructure that would benefit the rabble that make less than $1,000,000 a year. Irrelevant that taxing the ludicrously rich will improve mobility, create jobs, eliminate car-related overhead for lower-income individuals, reduce pollution, increase productivity by reducing time lost in traffic and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

That is the difference. Not money nor technological expertise, but a simple societal value allows German citizens to have access to world-class public transportation and leaves Americans with pathetic, nearly non-existent mass transit. It is time Americans realized that we need to work together on some level regardless of socio-economic background. Great American thinker/genius John Nash (an American) thought so.

Have the lessons of A Beautiful Mind already been forgotten? Adam Smith needs revision:

“The best result will come from everyone in the group doing what’s best for himself… and the group!”

[photo credit: Deutsche Bahn AG]

Related posts:

• New Chinese Rail Line Said to be Fastest High-Speed Train
• High Speed Rail at 90 mph?! ARRA & the Northeast Corridor
• Train in Vain: Epilogue on High-Speed Rail Series
• High Speed Rail in France: Le TGV — C’est Cool.
• Florida Will Build Nation’s First High-Speed Rail Corridor

Last month Thomas L. Friedman wrote in the New York Times an interesting op ed on why America should tax more gasoline. This occurs as the United States is the least forceful OECD country regarding gas tax. US drivers pay on average less than ten euro cents of tax per litre when their German, British, Italian, Turkish or French counterparts pay as much as 60 to 70 cents per litre. Even Australia does better with more than 20 cents per litre.

The situation varies from State to State with Alaska only taxing 26.4 cents per gallon of gasoline while California taxing up to 63.9 cents per gallon. Federal authorities already tax 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents for diesel.

Since the United States’ addiction to oil is widely documented and recognized as a threat by both sides of the political spectrum, why shouldn’t it tax oil more to curb the consumption?

This could effectively stimulate efficiency, decrease the amount of oil the country consumes each day and also help to curb greenhouse gas emissions. One dollar per gallon would bring $140 billion to the Federal government each year. One dollar per gallon would amount to 39 euro cents per litre. Even with such a tax, the United States would keep on taxing less heavily gas than most OECD countries.

As Friedman notes in his article :

Such a tax would make our economy healthier by reducing the deficit, by stimulating the renewable energy industry, by strengthening the dollar through shrinking oil imports and by helping to shift the burden of health care away from business to government so our companies can compete better globally.

Such a tax would make our population healthier by expanding health care and reducing emissions. Such a tax would make our national-security healthier by shrinking our dependence on oil from countries that have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs and by increasing our leverage over petro-dictators, like those in Iran, Russia and Venezuela, through shrinking their oil incomes.

Instead of spending the money on national debt or healthcare, my belief is that the US should spend it on advancing and advocating cleantech, cutting its fossil fuels consumption and stopping to rely so massively on oil imports. It would also prepare itself for higher oil prices and peak oil.

Here are some projects that could benefit from such a tax and decrease oil consumption and exports:

• electric cars research, promotion and incentivesenergy efficiency and smart grid

• road infrastructure

• renewables (research, promotion and incentives)

• nuclear

• high speed rail and mass transit

• any project unrelated to energy

With 15 cents per gallon  each project would bring around $9 billion per year. No doubt that with all this money many things could be achieved.

To exemplify, here are some calculations using the figures given in Sustainable energy – without the hot air:

With $90 billion collected during a decade America could build approximately 45 GW of nuclear capacity or 70 GW of offshore wind.

As for high speed rail, this sum would multiply by ten the amount already allocated by President Obama. With all this money the country could get its ten high speed rail corridors and could even go way beyond.

Of course, if one dollar per gallon was too much, America could enact a fifty cents tax. The duration of the projects would however double.

China recently unveiled massive projects for high speed rail, nuclear power and hydroelectricity. Even if the Chinese government is not all too ready to cut its emissions, it is fully aware how relying on dirty coal and foreign oil could slow down the country’s rapid economic growth. Could the US just do the same ?

[photo credit: Flickr]

Related posts:

• China is World Leader In Clean-Tech Investments, Report Says
• The Energy of Entrepreneurs
• Is the Electric Car’s Tax-Free Ride Coming to an End?
• Two Recommended Green Tech Events in San Francisco
• Confidence Picks Up in Clean Tech Funding: Report