Climate Capitalism

In yet another example of the complexities of combatting climate change, a study conducted by environmental engineers at the University of California at Davis raises questions about the true carbon reduction benefits of using public transportation as compared, for example, to driving an SUV, according to this article from AFP.  The study focused on the overall carbon production of public transport including the impacts of building and maintaining the infrastructure for the transportation system.  The study doesn’t appear to discourage investment in mass transit, but rather appears to be aimed at raising awareness among consumers and policymakers about all of the factors that impact carbon emissions.

In this May 14 entry, I commented on an article from an Oregon newspaper discussing how relatively inexpensive efficiency improvements like installing insulation can have a much greater impact on reducing carbon emissions than investing in more expensive technologies like solar power.  Seemingly to reinforce the point, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced an initiative today to increase the number of light colored roofs.  Replacing dark roofs with white ones, according to a statement attributed to Secretary Chu in a May 26, 2009, AFP article, “could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years.” 

Although the article isn’t clear, it appears that the 11-year figure assumes that all dark roofs in the world suddenly be painted white.  Obviously, an initiative to get new government construction or to provide tax incentives for lighter colored roofs on private construction would not have this drastic an effect, but it would have a positive effect.  Again, the point is not that investment in more expensive technologies should not be abandoned for simpler ones.  As Secretary Chu points out, we must consider a “range of measures” in fighting climate change, which includes both new advances in technology and greater implementation of common sense efficiency improvements.

AP White House Correpondent Jennifer Loven published this analysis today on the Obama administration’s brokering of a compromise between the federal government, state governments, the auto industry and environmentalists on vehicle emissions standards.  No doubt many will find fault with one or more aspects of the deal, but that is the nature of any compromise.  The fact that the various stakeholders with significantly divergent interests were able to find common ground is reason for optimism that we will start to see progress on other energy and pollution issues, including the fight against global warming more generally.

If you’re reading this, you probably have some interest in the intersection of business and sustainable energy.  If so, then be sure to check out Fortune magazine’s The Business of Green section.  It has a variety of 3-4 minute videos about news and trends in the business of sustainable energy and technology. 

There are several interesting recent episodes on the controversy over clean coal technology, including an interview with George Soros.  Among the other intriguing content was a story about a manufacturer that uses methane gas from a nearby landfill to power a Wisconsin plant.

You can subscribe to the Business of Green podcast on iTunes or Zune Marketplace.

We here at ClimateCapitalism.com are all for investing in clean energy, but we’re also for common sense.  Here’s an article from the Corvallis, OR Gazette Times that puts both concepts into perspective.  According to a study performed by an advocacy group in nearby Vancouver, WA, old-fashioned investments like installing insulation can often result in more energy savings than more expensive “green” investments like solar systems.  The moral of the story: a combination of energy efficiency and new technology is the best clean energy strategy.

It’s Earth Day, and there are a zillion articles and blog posts on ways to live a “greener” lifestyle, reduce your carbon footprint, and otherwise make the world a better place. 

However, one article in particular that caught my eye was an entry from the Conscious Consumer Blog’s Lori Bongiorno entitled Pick Your Green Battles.  Bongiorno offers advice on picking between the various lifestyle changes that conventional wisdom says are good for the environment. Among the choices that Bongiorno says you don’t need to feel so guilty about because they don’t have an appreciable environmental impact compared to the alternative: picking paper over plastic grocery bags, using disposable diapers, and using the occasional disposable coffee cup.  Instead, she suggests focusing your efforts on low-cost strategies like regular car maintenance, eating less meat, washing in cold water, and carpooling.

For other great ideas on how we can all use less energy with a few easy, cheap, and simple lifestyle changes, just google “earth day” anytime.

If you’re considering installing solar, wind or other renewable energy improvements for your home or business, make sure to check out the DSIRE(Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency) website.  The site lists available state and local tax incentives for renewable energy and efficiency improvements for each state and through federal programs.  For an interactive map, see this link:

http://www.dsireusa.org/index.cfm?EE=1&RE=1

Time reporter Michael Grunwald reports that developer and former Green Bay Packers and Dallas Cowboys player, Syd Kitson, has unveiled plans for a Florida green community for as many as 45,000 inhabitants.  The plans feature a photovoltaic solar power plant, a smart grid, and a variety of energy efficiency strategies.

Click this link to see Kitson’s feature-filled website for Babcock Ranch - Southwest Florida’s City of Tomorrow.  Other than the overabundance of Segway machines highlighed in the concept video, the City looks very cool.  It will be interesting to see if he can actually pull it off.

Jeremy Hsu of Space.com has an interesting article out today about a project for creating a nuclear fusion reaction using 192 giant lasers focused on a pea-sized fuel pellet at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California.  NIF’s process differs from other experimental fusion reaction methods, which involve containing the intense heat generated by the reaction by suspending it in a magnetic field.  According to the article, the reaction is contained as a result of the fuel being consumed by the reaction quicker than it can expand outward.

Hsu’s article does not address several key practical questions about the technology, what will it cost and will it be capable of generating more energy than is needed to create the reaction in the first place?  Another article by Adam Hadhazy of Scientific American, however, quotes a lab spokesperson as saying that the lab expects the process to generate a net positive amount of energy, which apparently would be a first for fusion reactions.   An ignition test reportedly scheduled for 2010 would involve the use of 500 trillion watts of energy to power the lasers. 

So, whether this is the holy grail of clean energy technology or just a really expensive demonstration of Galactic Imperial power remains to be seen.

President-Elect Obama’s appointees for Energy Secretary and EPA director both have strong clean-energy credentials:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/obama-decides-on-energy-epa-picks.html